"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

they find any
intelligence,
please let us know.

Stanford-Binet: 144
Wechsler: 130

Not a genius, but not bad either. Better than your BS "study" quoted for
any of the Kerry states.

Max

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

they find any
intelligence,
please let us know.

Stanford-Binet: 144
Wechsler: 130

Not a genius, but not bad either. Better than your BS "study" quoted for
any of the Kerry states.

Not my study, and you're IQ is a bit low for this ng. You might want
to consider taking a remedial course or two. Even Mr. Poodle has a
higher IQ.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

they find any
intelligence,
please let us know.

Stanford-Binet: 144
Wechsler: 130

Not a genius, but not bad either. Better than your BS "study" quoted for
any of the Kerry states.


Not my study, and you're IQ is a bit low for this ng.

Yeah I know. Doesn't Bubbles claim 170 or something? And didn't Jaxoff
claim to be a member of Mensa? LOL.

You might want
to consider taking a remedial course or two.

Are you implying that IQ can be altered by remediation?

Even Mr. Poodle has a
higher IQ.

I'm inclined to wonder exactly what IQ numbers you've posted over the years.
If your inability to debate is any indication, you may want to keep them
close to the vest.

Max

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Are you implying that IQ can be altered by remediation?

No, but in your case, anything would help.

I'm inclined to wonder exactly what IQ numbers you've posted over the years.
If your inability to debate is any indication, you may want to keep them
close to the vest.

Sorry, but I'm a grownup. I don't need to brag. Feel free though.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz"

Sorry, but I'm a grownup. I don't need to brag. Feel free though.

Are you listening, Bubbles?

Max

Maxprop wrote:
Stanford-Binet: 144
Wechsler: 130

Not a genius, but not bad either.

But it doesn't do you much good, does it... you're still dumb enough to
claim... repeatedly... that I am a "liberal."

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

Not a genius, but not bad either.

But it doesn't do you much good, does it... you're still dumb enough to
claim... repeatedly... that I am a "liberal."

What do IQ scores from my youth have to do with such an assessment? One has
only to be modestly perceptive to glean that you are substantially
left-of-center in your particular brand of political dogma. I'll bet even
Bubbles or Jon could arrive at that particular conclusion, Cleopatra.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
.... One has
only to be modestly perceptive to glean that you are substantially
left-of-center in your particular brand of political dogma.

Post some of my dogmatic views that are substantially "left of center"
Max. Your bluff is being called... not for the first time either. You
haven't answered this, because you can't.

Until you quote my statements of my "left of center" or "liberal" views,
you're just an empty head flapping an empty mouth.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
.... One has
only to be modestly perceptive to glean that you are substantially
left-of-center in your particular brand of political dogma.

Post some of my dogmatic views that are substantially "left of center"
Max. Your bluff is being called... not for the first time either. You
haven't answered this, because you can't.

Okay, Douggie. I'm not going to drag exact quotes from Google, but I'll
paraphrase or characterize some of the points you've made. 1) When I was
disputing the way welfare has traditionally been used as a selling point for
the dems during campaigns, you accused me of Neaderthalic illogic,
antihumanitarianism, lacking in compassion, etc. Conservatives, while
recognizing that some individuals simply cannot help themselves, also
subscribe to the belief that too many use welfare as a reason to avoid
becoming productive. 2) You've constantly decried the "tax cuts for only
the very wealthy," seemingly ignoring the fact that the very wealthy
constitute roughly 10% of the population but pay roughly 30% of the nations
revenue. Those numbers alone would lead one to the conclusion that that
segment of the population is overtaxed. Your rancor at such tax cuts would
indicate your belief in *redistribution of wealth,* which is page 3 of the
socialist manifesto. 3) You've resorted to name-calling when I advocated
semi-privatization of Social Security. Most conservatives believe that SS
won't endure at its current status, rather needing some sort of overhaul to
enable future generations to retire viably. Not to mention the fact that
"investing" in SS is about as poor an investment as one can possibly make.
The government is an extremely poor manager of one's funds. Shall I
continue? Or will you simply take the Clintonian out with "Deny, deny,
deny?"


Until you quote my statements of my "left of center" or "liberal" views,
you're just an empty head flapping an empty mouth.

Don't hold your breath for quotes. You've gotten all I care to provide, the
operative word being "care."

Max

Post some of my dogmatic views that are substantially "left of center"
Max. Your bluff is being called... not for the first time either. You
haven't answered this, because you can't.

Maxprop wrote:
Okay, Douggie. I'm not going to drag exact quotes from Google

That's just as well.


...1) When I was
disputing the way welfare has traditionally been used as a selling point for
the dems during campaigns, you accused me of Neaderthalic illogic,
antihumanitarianism, lacking in compassion, etc.

Opposing inhumanity is "substantially left of center?"

... Conservatives, while
recognizing that some individuals simply cannot help themselves, also
subscribe to the belief that too many use welfare as a reason to avoid
becoming productive.

I would somewhat agree, bu you must have missed out on the welfare
reform acts of the 1990s. And you can't seem to point to a quote where I
am in favor of increasing welfare. Once again you attempt to proclaim
some great ideological principle and stub your toe on your own ignorance.


... 2) You've constantly decried the "tax cuts for only
the very wealthy," seemingly ignoring the fact that the very wealthy
constitute roughly 10% of the population but pay roughly 30% of the nations
revenue.

I don't ignore that fact at all. The richest 10% of the country owns 50%
of the wealth and well over 50% of the income... so that makes paying
30% of the tax burden rather a free ride, doesn't it?

Aside from the sound economics, it is immoral to decrease the tax burden
on a group well able to bear it, in order to increase the tax burden on
those further down the ladder.

Next I suppose you are going to angrily denounce me for failing to
contribute the "Buy Chateaubriand For a Millionaire" charity drive.



... 3) You've resorted to name-calling when I advocated
semi-privatization of Social Security.

Not really, I just call you names like "stupid" and "caveman fascist"
because they are the closest fit.

Privatization of Social Security is a stupid scheme that will benefit
the politically well-connected brokers handling gov't retiremnet
accounts. You're in favor of that? And you think it's "conservative?"


... Most conservatives believe that SS
won't endure at its current status

Actually, figures show that SS will be solvent 'till 2040AD or
thereabouts. Most "conservatives" have at least a passing familiarity
with basic accounting.

I'd be in favor of rolling back Social Security, but not handing it
over for yet another rob-the-taxpayer scheme to redistribute the wealth.


Don't hold your breath for quotes. You've gotten all I care to provide, the
operative word being "care."

Thanks, you've shown how much you care, Maxxie. And how disconnected
from reality you are. I suggest unplugging the Fascist Whacko Fantasy
Channel once in a while and watching/reading some real actual news...
you know, from planet Earth...

DSK