NationStates Jolt Archive

The same people who decry the use of IQ tests, and say that The Bell Curve is a book full of crap are the first to want to use IQ to compare themselves to conservatives.

Wonder why?

The same people who decry the use of IQ tests, and say that The Bell Curve is a book full of crap are the first to want to use IQ to compare themselves to conservatives.

Wonder why?


No idea. I found The Bell Curve highly interesting...
Wait - I may have a clue.


No one likes an objective study, unless they believe in the objective.

SATs don't matter, He graduated from Yale with a C average, Yale! and besides, whatever he got on his SATs dont matter, he was average! a president should be a genius, like JFK!

Oh, but Bush is a genius...in his own way! He's a genius at lying, cheating, stealing, scheming..he's a genius at screwing over the average worker, and making them like it. He's a genius at spreading hatred and bigotry towards certain minority groups. He's a genius at sowing division and discord...greed and hatred...everything that is horrible about human nature, Bush is a genius at.

How did he get to be that way, you ask?

Well, firstly, remember he's Barbara's son! Secondly...remember that George doesn't HAVE to be a genius...in fact, his handlers didn't WANT a genius...they wanted a puppet. Someone malleable, who could be manipulated and directed. Bush is just the front man of the criminal gang, you understand. Cheney and Rove are the REAL "President." Bush is just playing the face man...the "average Joe cowboy that everyone is supposed to love and admire" because what happens BEHIND that curtain is what they don't want you to see!

Bush is supposed to be the guy you'd want to tip back a beer with, because the average shit-for-brains American bases his vote on LIKABILITY...not on genius, or ability to do the job! They base their votes on the same criteria we used to use too vote for the cheerleading squad or class president back in high school! "Do I like this guy or not?" Think about it! Was it not always the most popular kids that got elected to these joke positions...rather than the most capable?

Unfortunately, the President of the United States is not a joke job...it is the most powerful position on the planet!

No, Bush is, in his own way, a genius. What he did was surround himself with geniuses, so that he didn't HAVE to be one. Bush is a puppet. A monkey on a stick. You ever see the accordion player with a little monkey holding a cup in all the cartoons? Well, Bush is the monkey with the cup. Cheney and Rove are ACTUALLY the accordion players. We just aren't supposed to KNOW that.

Oh, but Bush is a genius...in his own way! He's a genius at lying, cheating, stealing, scheming..he's a genius at screwing over the average worker, and making them like it. He's a genius at spreading hatred and bigotry towards certain minority groups. He's a genius at sowing division and discord...greed and hatred...everything that is horrible about human nature, Bush is a genius at.

How did he get to be that way, you ask?

Well, firstly, remember he's Barbara's son! Secondly...remember that George doesn't HAVE to be a genius...in fact, his handlers didn't WANT a genius...they wanted a puppet. Someone malleable, who could be manipulated and directed. Bush is just the front man of the criminal gang, you understand. Cheney and Rove are the REAL "President." Bush is just playing the face man...the "average Joe cowboy that everyone is supposed to love and admire" because what happens BEHIND that curtain is what they don't want you to see!

Bush is supposed to be the guy you'd want to tip back a beer with, because the average shit-for-brains American bases his vote on LIKABILITY...not on genius, or ability to do the job! They base their votes on the same criteria we used to use too vote for the cheerleading squad or class president back in high school! "Do I like this guy or not?" Think about it! Was it not always the most popular kids that got elected to these joke positions...rather than the most capable?

Unfortunately, the President of the United States is not a joke job...it is the most powerful position on the planet!

No, Bush is, in his own way, a genius. What he did was surround himself with geniuses, so that he didn't HAVE to be one. Bush is a puppet. A monkey on a stick. You ever see the accordion player with a little monkey holding a cup in all the cartoons? Well, Bush is the monkey with the cup. Cheney and Rove are ACTUALLY the accordion players. We just aren't supposed to KNOW that.


Oh, I see. The same way that Ted Kennedy was playing John Kerry like a ventriloquist's dummy...

This is a fun sport for me. I enjoy reading the start of a thread that shows something to the effect of the current U.S. President lacking intelligence and then it evolves into people owning automatic weapons like the Uzi.

As for Gee Whiz Dubya, it is no great secret that he is not that bright. For whatever reason, the voters in America overlooked that shortcoming.

As for me, I chose John Kerry in the Democratic primary and I voted the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Part of the reason I made these choices relate to the difference in intelligence between the Republican and the Democrat who ran for President.

Beyond the natural talent, though, I made my choice based on what the two men said about their beliefs in freedom and America.

Ditto. Except I voted Edwards in the primary...and Kerry-Edwards in the Presidential.
Edwards represents everything I hope to be someday, and I admire him very much.
Edwards was born on the wrong side of the tracks, the first son of a mill worker's family to ever go to college, and became a wildly successful attorney. This is EXACTLY what I hope to be able to achieve someday. And I still admire Edwards. I suspect we haven't seen the last of Edwards in the Democratic Party.

God bless John and especially Elizabeth Edwards!

Ditto. Except I voted Edwards in the primary...and Kerry-Edwards in the Presidential.
Edwards represents everything I hope to be someday, and I admire him very much.
Edwards was born on the wrong side of the tracks, the first son of a mill worker's family to ever go to college, and became a wildly successful attorney. This is EXACTLY what I hope to be able to achieve someday. And I still admire Edwards. I suspect we haven't seen the last of Edwards in the Democratic Party.

God bless John and especially Elizabeth Edwards!

If you've ever listened to Tony Blair answering questions from the opposition on Thursdays, and seen how quick witted and eloquent he is, you would immediately come to the conclusion that John Kerry and George Bush are barely functional morons.

Tune in and listen. We NEVER question our politicians that hard, and he appears to be able to hold himself in a quick and well-spoken manner that I KNOW none of our politicians would ever be able to survive for 60 seconds.

If you've ever listened to Tony Blair answering questions from the opposition on Thursdays, and seen how quick witted and eloquent he is, you would immediately come to the conclusion that John Kerry and George Bush are barely functional morons.

Tune in and listen. We NEVER question our politicians that hard, and he appears to be able to hold himself in a quick and well-spoken manner that I KNOW none of our politicians would ever be able to survive for 60 seconds.

I have... and reached that conclusion pretty quickly.

PS: did not hear Edwards until veep-debate. Classified him as 'retard' within 5 minutes.

I have... and reached that conclusion pretty quickly.

PS: did not hear Edwards until veep-debate. Classified him as 'retard' within 5 minutes.

What's interesting about Tony Blair is that he's not the only one the British have produced who's that smart.

Ever hear Margaret Thatcher? You don't have to agree with her, (or Tony for that matter), but I would never have been able to keep up with her in an argument - and I can't name a single American politician who could have either.

I remember way back during the Bork confirmation hearings, how Bork (an extremely well-spoken intelligent man even if you hate him) made Ted Kennedy look like a first-year law student who was on his way to an F on day one.

American politicians are mostly bluster and talk. 95% sales. They are merely vehicles for the people behind the scenes.

What's interesting about Tony Blair is that he's not the only one the British have produced who's that smart.


Interesting enough William Hague (last Tory leader but 2) regularly made Blair his bitch, if you pardon the expression, in Parliamentary Question Time. However, he was basically an electoral liability since he came across as dull, indifferent and more than a little bit scary. So there's definitely something as too smart in UK politics, too.

Interestingly enough the BBC's Parliamentary programme used to have (maybe still has) a section called Bill and Benn which featured William Hague and (the extremely left-wing) Tony Benn discussing the daily events. Both came across as clearly highly intelligent, incredibly knowledgable about Parliamentary affairs and constitutional workins and both witty and erudite. Both also never had a hope in hell of becoming PM.

Interesting enough William Hague (last Tory leader but 2) regularly made Blair his bitch, if you pardon the expression, in Parliamentary Question Time. However, he was basically an electoral liability since he came across as dull, indifferent and more than a little bit scary. So there's definitely something as too smart in UK politics, too.

Interestingly enough the BBC's Parliamentary programme used to have (maybe still has) a section called Bill and Benn which featured William Hague and (the extremely left-wing) Tony Benn discussing the daily events. Both came across as clearly highly intelligent, incredibly knowledgable about Parliamentary affairs and constitutional workins and both witty and erudite. Both also never had a hope in hell of becoming PM.

You have to admit that they made any American President or Presidential candidate in recent memory look like a complete dumbass.

I took one of those online IQ test thingies after drinking about a pint of Vodka and scored 189. I took the same test again sober and got a 163. I tried it again after a pint of whiskey and scored a 112.

Undeniable scientific conclusion: Vodka makes you smarter! :D

This is Hilarious!!

Bush's Sovereigneneities (http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=2646755)

I hope the link works. It is a video of Bush answering a really tough question.
(I am not sure if it will work with 56k modem but its worth trying)


And iam really sorry if this was posted before, there was no way I was going to read through 18 pages of this.

Gataway driver
http://www.archive.org/movies/movie...nTenYrs&from=BA

Interesting. Perhaps the stress of his catastrophy ridden first term has caused the deterioration in his speaking capabilities. In a number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder the sufferer has lost the full use of some part of their memory. It may be math, vocabulary, physical coordination, it varies with each person. Often it is not fully recoverable. My husband, as a Nam vet, has been diagnosed with this problem (though he won't admit it) in relation to reasoning skills when faced with opposition. His thoughts become chaotic and he becomes frustrated and withdrawn. I was struck with Bush's stumbling and lack of cognitive thought in the first debate when compared to the other two debates, especially the public forum debate. In the third debate he was forceful and able to fully put his thoughts forward. It was like looking at two different people. :confused:

My Gun Not Yours
Met a lot of Southern women who thought Kerry was creepy, and Bush was "down to earth". Just on watching the men speak - not anything else.
I don't like Clinton, but I've heard him speak, and he's great at coming across as down to earth, especially in person. Very likeable.
Kerry has the personality of wallboard, with a thin veneer of gold paint..

as a southern woman, I can say that Kerry strikes me as a blustery rich guy that can't be trusted any further than I can throw him. His, and his wife's, treatment of others is seen as rude and undignified. Clinton, on the other hand, comes across as someone who would be in your circle of friends. You can imagine him as a local businessman who you see at PTA meetings and at church.

Keruvalia
I took one of those online IQ test thingies after drinking about a pint of Vodka and scored 189. I took the same test again sober and got a 163. I tried it again after a pint of whiskey and scored a 112.

The online IQ tests are basically too short and incomplete to be any sort of measurement of a person's intelligence. IQ is not a measurement of one's knowledge or capabilities, but a measurement of a person's capability to learn and apply that learning. I'm an inactive member of Mensa. I was turned off to the organization by the vast number of members who sit on their duffs, complain about their lack of opportunity and appreciation, and try to one-up each other on their intellect. They mistake their ability to learn with actual workable knowledge and skills. Disgusting!

What's interesting about Tony Blair is that he's not the only one the British have produced who's that smart.

Ever hear Margaret Thatcher? You don't have to agree with her, (or Tony for that matter), but I would never have been able to keep up with her in an argument - and I can't name a single American politician who could have either.

I remember way back during the Bork confirmation hearings, how Bork (an extremely well-spoken intelligent man even if you hate him) made Ted Kennedy look like a first-year law student who was on his way to an F on day one.

American politicians are mostly bluster and talk. 95% sales. They are merely vehicles for the people behind the scenes.


Of course, mon vieux! I absolutely love Mags.


Remember her Falklands speech?

The Falklands islands are and remain British territory.
No aggression, and no invasion, can alter that simple fact.
It is the government's objective to ( remove the invaders/invasion )
and restore the ( territory/islands ) to British administration at the earliest possible moment.

No 'axis of evil' crap or 'hold accountable' story is ever going to beat that for being concise, and to the point.

fine, fine, I will let the I.q. thing go, but I stand by my previous statement that George Bush is an idiot, like his father, 150,000,000,000 spent in Iraq, thats not too smart!
"Hey Pot"
"Yeah, Kettle"
"Your Black"
"Oh yeah, my bad. Shit!"

Of course, mon vieux! I absolutely love Mags.


Remember her Falklands speech?

The Falklands islands are and remain British territory.
No aggression, and no invasion, can alter that simple fact.
It is the government's objective to ( remove the invaders/invasion )
and restore the ( territory/islands ) to British administration at the earliest possible moment.

No 'axis of evil' crap or 'hold accountable' story is ever going to beat that for being concise, and to the point.

Exactly. And you knew she was going to put her shoe up someone's ass with a vengeance.

Exactly. And you knew she was going to put her shoe up someone's ass with a vengeance.


Damn right!

thats a classic foxnews lie--every recount shows Gore won

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but when I read this I just had to.

In March 2001 the main Miami newspaper completed a total recount of ALL counties in FLA. They used ALL the methods of recounting i.e. hanging chad, partially filled in box, abentees...etc. There were a total of eight differnt ways that the ballots could be recounted. In seven of the eight Bush won by anywhere between 312 to over 1300.

The only recount Gore won was when ballots that were thrown out for; no signature, no CLEAR vote or double vote, person voted more than once, absentee ballots with no postmark (and here is the curx of his attempt to steal the FLA vote. Military personel who are stationed overseas and send correspondence to ANY Gov't agency, be it city, county, state or federal, are not required to place a stamp on it. Therefore the correspodence is not required to be postmarked), or their leagal residency could not be verified. The result was a Gore win by about 250 votes. BTW this was the most liberal way of counting/viewing ballots there was. No account was taken to see if this recount violated FLA election law.

All the USSC did was inform the FSC to enforce thier election laws as written and NOT change them in the middle of an election. FSC lacked the courage and foresight to enforce the laws that the FLA Constitution detailed. The "passed the buck" to the USSC, when the USSC admonished them they had no choice but to enforce the laws as written.

Now with the result of the 2004 election I have heard some Conservatives say the this has given Bush a mandate. Libs/Progressives/Dems reply that Bush's with was only 3% and thats no mandate. I do somewhat agree with that. But when you take in to account that not only did Bush win by 3% of the popular vote, it was a MAJORITY (over 50% of that vote. The closest Clinton ever got was 48%), but also that Dems lost 4 Senate seats that brought the Reps majority in the Senate to 55 R, 44 D, 1 I. In 2 years (2006) there will be a mojority of Dem Senale seats you for election. If the pattern of the last 4 years holds true, the Rep will gain a majority of over 60 Senate seats. If this happens the Dem will loose the power to hold ANY legislation/ appointment that requires a "super-majority" (60 Senate votes) from passing. They will loose the ability to "filibuster" any motion. The DNC needs to look at its self and decide if they want to continue to pander to the far left and remain associated with the likes of MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore, ACT, ACTION...etc, or move to the right to meet the more moderate Dems and bring them back to the party.

IMO, I see the DNC moving further to the left, esp when MoveOn.org made the statement last week to take your hands off the DNC, it belongs to us. If Howard Dean get appointed to the Chairmanship of the DNC, it will be the downfall of the Democratic party.

The duly elected President of Forseral

**I would have posted a link to the Miami newspaper article, but they have purged their archives and it is no longer there**

Maybe if the moveon.org nutjobs do take over the party, the democrats will really suffer humiliating defeats and this party that has lost it way will reevaluate thier postitions and take a more mainstream view on things.

Maybe if the moveon.org nutjobs do take over the party, the democrats will really suffer humiliating defeats and this party that has lost it way will reevaluate thier postitions and take a more mainstream view on things.


Nah. Once the GOP becomes too large, it will just split into two sides, two new parties.

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but when I read this I just had to.

In March 2001 the main Miami newspaper completed a total recount of ALL counties in FLA. They used ALL the methods of recounting i.e. hanging chad, partially filled in box, abentees...etc. There were a total of eight differnt ways that the ballots could be recounted. In seven of the eight Bush won by anywhere between 312 to over 1300.

The only recount Gore won was when ballots that were thrown out for; no signature, no CLEAR vote or double vote, person voted more than once, absentee ballots with no postmark (and here is the curx of his attempt to steal the FLA vote. Military personel who are stationed overseas and send correspondence to ANY Gov't agency, be it city, county, state or federal, are not required to place a stamp on it. Therefore the correspodence is not required to be postmarked), or their leagal residency could not be verified. The result was a Gore win by about 250 votes. BTW this was the most liberal way of counting/viewing ballots there was. No account was taken to see if this recount violated FLA election law.

All the USSC did was inform the FSC to enforce thier election laws as written and NOT change them in the middle of an election. FSC lacked the courage and foresight to enforce the laws that the FLA Constitution detailed. The "passed the buck" to the USSC, when the USSC admonished them they had no choice but to enforce the laws as written.

Now with the result of the 2004 election I have heard some Conservatives say the this has given Bush a mandate. Libs/Progressives/Dems reply that Bush's with was only 3% and thats no mandate. I do somewhat agree with that. But when you take in to account that not only did Bush win by 3% of the popular vote, it was a MAJORITY (over 50% of that vote. The closest Clinton ever got was 48%), but also that Dems lost 4 Senate seats that brought the Reps majority in the Senate to 55 R, 44 D, 1 I. In 2 years (2006) there will be a mojority of Dem Senale seats you for election. If the pattern of the last 4 years holds true, the Rep will gain a majority of over 60 Senate seats. If this happens the Dem will loose the power to hold ANY legislation/ appointment that requires a "super-majority" (60 Senate votes) from passing. They will loose the ability to "filibuster" any motion. The DNC needs to look at its self and decide if they want to continue to pander to the far left and remain associated with the likes of MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore, ACT, ACTION...etc, or move to the right to meet the more moderate Dems and bring them back to the party.

IMO, I see the DNC moving further to the left, esp when MoveOn.org made the statement last week to take your hands off the DNC, it belongs to us. If Howard Dean get appointed to the Chairmanship of the DNC, it will be the downfall of the Democratic party.

The duly elected President of Forseral

**I would have posted a link to the Miami newspaper article, but they have purged their archives and it is no longer there**
your analysis is seriously flawed--the only hope for dems is if they move further to the left-its only when dems try to act like republican-lite that they lose and in your hourlong lecture you forgot to mention the 94,000 minority voters that were illegally purged from the voting rolls in Florida

Maybe if the moveon.org nutjobs do take over the party, the democrats will really suffer humiliating defeats and this party that has lost it way will reevaluate thier postitions and take a more mainstream view on things.
the democratic party needs 10,000 more MOVEON.ORGs and they need to liberate the American media--the dems should not compromise their clearly superior principles that would just play into the hands of the facists

the democratic party needs 10,000 more MOVEON.ORGs and they need to liberate the American media--the dems should not compromise their clearly superior principles that would just play into the hands of the facists
HAHAHAHA.
:D
Yes, keep it up. Spread the gospel, my young apprentice. We will sink the dimocraps soon enough.

the rechimplicans suffered a phyrric victory on Nov 04--they will soon commit public suicide when they try to enact their extremist agenda that 90% of Americans oppose

the rechimplicans suffered a phyrric victory on Nov 04--they will soon commit public suicide when they try to enact their extremist agenda that 90% of Americans oppose
Sorry, the republicans will never try to enact gay marriage.

your analysis is seriously flawed--the only hope for dems is if they move further to the left-its only when dems try to act like republican-lite that they lose and in your hourlong lecture you forgot to mention the 94,000 minority voters that were illegally purged from the voting rolls in Florida

You mean the CONVICTED CRIMINALS WHO ARE LEGALLY BARRED FROM VOTING, correct? :rolleyes:

Sorry, the republicans will never try to enact gay marriage.
most americans oppose gay marriage but support civil unions--I fail to see the difference

You mean the CONVICTED CRIMINALS WHO ARE LEGALLY BARRED FROM VOTING, correct? :rolleyes:
no I was talken about the non-criminals who just had similar sounding last names to felons who were wrongfully and deliberately purged from the rolls

America, the only country in the western world where people still maintain that private ownership of assault weapons is a better check on government than a robust constitution, an independent press and independence of institutions.

Nope. An armed citizenry is simply a precaution of last resort, but an absolutely essential precaution.

most americans oppose gay marriage but support civil unions--I fail to see the difference

You are correct on both accounts and I tend to agree with you. I see it as semantics.

However, after considering the issue I think I have come to a distinction.

Civil unions are a legal contract, providing protection under the law for the couple entering the Union. I see this as a civil rights issue, and should be up to the Supreme Court to rule on, like abortion or segregation.

Marriage however, is really meaningless outside of it's religious connotations. A common-law couple has all the same rights and protections as a married one, and they didn't even have to sign a piece of paper. It's the implication that a "marriage" per say is guaranteed acceptance by a religious organization, whereas when the term "civil union" is used, the assumption is that it is a legal issue, and not a Church one. I think a plebiscite should be required to legalize gay marriage, though I am fully in favor of it and I know currently that it would fail if put to a vote.

However, that doesn't mean it is a right that is necessarily guaranteed to someone. You have a right to be married by the State, but not by God, and because of the semantics of terminology, Marriage is considered a religious term and outside of the purview of the Supreme Court.

Nope. An armed citizenry is simply a precaution of last resort, but an absolutely essential precaution.

"Absolutely essential"? It wasn't in Georgia, doesn't seem to be in the Ukraine and played no, or virtually no, part in Serbia, Romania, the Czech Republic and a number of other Eastern European countries that removed dictators. The UK has also managed to have almost 200 years of solid, uninterupted (with the notable and justifiable exception of WW2) parliamentary democracy without an armed citizenry. Plenty of other European nations have maintained democracy for just as long, if not longer, without armed citizens.

I would give this theory more credence is someone could cite a concrete example of where an armed citizenry has stopped a dictatorship forming.

your kidding, right? Urban Legend? multiple studies have shown that throughout his life span George has never achieved higher on his I.q. tests, its accurate within 5 points, must I cite sources? Meanwhile, Clinton has his I.q. somewhere in the 180s.... and we're stuck with a man almost as stupid as a dolphin

Hey, please don't insult the dolphins! There's lots of evidence that they're very smart.

"Absolutely essential"? It wasn't in Georgia, doesn't seem to be in the Ukraine and played no, or virtually no, part in Serbia, Romania, the Czech Republic and a number of other Eastern European countries that removed dictators. The UK has also managed to have almost 200 years of solid, uninterupted (with the notable and justifiable exception of WW2) parliamentary democracy without an armed citizenry. Plenty of other European nations have maintained democracy for just as long, if not longer, without armed citizens.

I would give this theory more credence is someone could cite a concrete example of where an armed citizenry has stopped a dictatorship forming.

That "argument" is so wrong on so many levels...

The first is the assumption that the form government takes has some bearing on how free it is. The form of government is irrelevant--the important part is that it operates according to the proper principles. If anything, democracies are less free because they tend to devolve into populism, which is more concerned with making people happy, even at the expense of individual liberty--when in fact the only proper principle for government is to PROTECT individual liberty, and do nothing else. Thus, an armed citizenry is necessary not to prevent the form of government from changing, but to keep it in its place, regardless of its form.

the NRA is an extremist organization that doesnt want ANY regulation on guns AT ALL no matter how reasonable--The NRA also thinks you need submachine guns to hunt deer apparently

I found this and had to comment.....you're completely wrong, yet again, Skape...the NRA calls for sensible gun regulation. They do not advocate the ownership of submachine guns nor do they advocate the ownership of full-auto firearms......

I found this and had to comment.....you're completely wrong, yet again, Skape...the NRA calls for sensible gun regulation. They do not advocate the ownership of submachine guns nor do they advocate the ownership of full-auto firearms......

It's a common misconception.

no I was talken about the non-criminals who just had similar sounding last names to felons who were wrongfully and deliberately purged from the rolls
:) And they just keep on plugging along spreading their lies. This is one of my favorites. It comes up every time the left loses an argument.

That "argument" is so wrong on so many levels...

The first is the assumption that the form government takes has some bearing on how free it is. The form of government is irrelevant--the important part is that it operates according to the proper principles. If anything, democracies are less free because they tend to devolve into populism, which is more concerned with making people happy, even at the expense of individual liberty--when in fact the only proper principle for government is to PROTECT individual liberty, and do nothing else. Thus, an armed citizenry is necessary not to prevent the form of government from changing, but to keep it in its place, regardless of its form.

I agree with some of what you say, though the belief that the "only proper principle for government is to PROTECT individual liberty, and do nothing else" is just that, a belief, not an absolute truth (plenty of political philosophers would disagree with you). Again, though, European democracies have not degenerated into tyrannies of the majority without an armed citizenry. Indeed, one could argue that, with the notable exception of gun ownership, in some European states individual liberties are better protected than in the US.

Again, would you care to provide on concrete example where an armed citizenry has kept a domestic government in its place?

I agree with some of what you say, though the belief that the "only proper principle for government is to PROTECT individual liberty, and do nothing else" is just that, a belief, not an absolute truth
Actually, it IS an absolute truth.
(plenty of political philosophers would disagree with you).
That does not mean that the aforementioned statement is not an absolute truth; it simply means that those individuals are wrong.
Again, though, European democracies have not degenerated into tyrannies of the majority without an armed citizenry.
Actually, it's already happened throughout Europe as well as the US.

What else would you call:

Minimum-wage laws
Government-mandated work weeks
Drug prohibition
Prostitution prohibition
Welfare
Gambling prohibition
Hate-speech laws
Government-run utilities
etc.

but populist abrogations on individual liberty of the worst order?

What else would you call: [...] Government-run utilities [...]I call my government-run utilities "guaranteed pure drinking water, sustainable waste disposal, less biased media, and effective public transport".

Anarcocapitalism all the way!

Actually, it IS an absolute truth.

That does not mean that the aforementioned statement is not an absolute truth; it simply means that those individuals are wrong.

Would you care to explain why it is that these philosophers are wrong and that your particular belief is an absolute truth?


Actually, it's already happened throughout Europe as well as the US.

What else would you call:

Minimum-wage laws
Government-mandated work weeks
Drug prohibition
Prostitution prohibition
Welfare
Gambling prohibition
Hate-speech laws
Government-run utilities
etc.

but populist abrogations on individual liberty of the worst order?

I'd call numbers 1,2,5 and 7 abrogations on economic liberty, not personal or political liberty. I'd also point out that European countries such as Holland uphold those liberties listed above which are civil or political liberties as well, and in a number of cases better, than the US with both larger governments and no armed civizenry.

Thus we come back to my original point. There is no definite correlation between large government and erosion of civil or political liberties (though there is with economic liberties, that is granted). Furthermore I still see absolutely no evidence to suggest that an armed citizenry is necessary to protect liberties of any kind. It's worth noting that the UK has a comparable level of economic freedom to the US yet hasn't needed an armed citizenry to protect it.

Bush received a 1206 on his SATs, and has an IQ of about 129. In a comparison with Kerry, both candidates are above the 90th percentile. However, Bush is likely in the mid to low 90s while Kerry is in the low 90s. Now, I'm not a Bush supporter, but I'm trying to be biased and unbalanced. Frankly, I think there's alot of bullshit on both sides. I am a libertarian socialist. I am not a conservative, or a Bushie or anything. I just want to be fair.

Sources:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-45282_Bush's_IQ_129_%C3%A2??_Links_provided.html
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

Yet he's a better President than John 'Herman Munster' Kerry could have dreamed of being......while a statist, President Bush is not a tenth of the anti-freedom socialist that Kerry is.....

Well at least Kerry's ideals aren't fueled by Fortune 500 companies and disguised as the moral rights movement. And what makes you think that he's an anti-freedom socialist?

Thus we come back to my original point. There is no definite correlation between large government and erosion of civil or political liberties (though there is with economic liberties, that is granted).

I think you are missing the point that economic liberties are civil liberties. I see no difference in taking away someones right to privately own buisness and taking away free speech or democratic voting. Our rights are held sancosanct and if the government wants to take them from me they can pry them from my cold, dead hands. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I am a libertarian socialist.

You do realize that is an oxymoron and thus impossible right? How do you intend to preserve all personal freedoms by taking them away exactly?

Think before you type. Please do your research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism