taks

that's generally how people become more conservative... as they age. i think the biggy for me is the hypocrisy (that i see) in the social programs. those that are getting a free ride, in my experience, don't deserve it. they're perfectly capable workers. perfectly qualified for better than minimum wage. but perfectly lazy. (i do realize not all are like this...) i voted for clinton *ducks* believe it or not. i was pseudo-liberal based partly on the lack of religion in my life and a general 'idealist' view of the world. as i grew, and became more educated, and paid more taxes, and saw more of the world, that view shifted. shifted to the point that both the extreme right and the left looked stupid in my eyes. taks

marilyn vos savant at 212 (i think that's the right #). they claim that a # that high is very hard to verify that accurately... it could be more or less, nobody knows how to tell. for adults, you are correct... we're capped. it's meaningless actually. the difference between learning at 40 and 50 probably is the difference between, say, 10 and 15. the former conveys an IQ of 120 while the latter 150. i think the mensa test is calculated to offset this. taks

note, btw, that in paraphrasing o'reilly i implied a bias towards "conservatism." this couldn't be further from the truth. the implication was meant to be that conservatives tend to support capitalist ideas, which is what i support. i'm not quite happy with the slide into socialism hidden as a compromise between the two ideals. current republicans and conservatives tend to be hiding in sheeps clothing, IMO. taks

yes... i understood what you meant. mostly just wanted to point out the "imbalance" across ages. IQ tests are generally seen to be much more accurate for young'uns compared to adults. i mean, if you're 60 years old with a supposed IQ of 150, what does it mean to be able to learn as if you were 90? conversely, if you're 6, and learning like a 9 year old, definitely measurable... taks

true. particularly the on-line tests... those are designed to get you to sign up to their service for a fee... of course taks

that's a definition they like to use, though it is a bit skewed from the actual calculation... particularly, it's not really "how smart" you are, but how easily you can learn. that definition works for somebody 6 years old, but not somebody 40 years old... (note that i am neither of those ages ) also, the reason some tests let it slip north of 100 is simply because it provides a measure of "growth" of society... at least, that's the rationalization. taks

??? this isn't a problem of capitalism per se. if we actually implemented capitalism without social programs, i.e. welfare, the problem would not be nearly as severe as witnessed. believe it or not, charitible contributions increase dramatically in more capitalist societies because they typically aren't burdened with high taxes... oh, also, in other systems, such as with socialism, the money balance is there, but less noticeable. oddly, it's even worse. the problem i'm referring to? particularly the average joe, regardless of skills or ability ALL make the same money... but the rich are still there, even richer than in a capitalist society because they control everything. there is no middle class when social programs become the norm... socialism leads to the haves and the have nots... period. at least with capitalism, you and i and every other average joe has a chance. taks

some of the tests (stanford binet i thought) adjust accordingly to reflect the current "norm" of society... i wouldn't doubt however, that we are a bit quicker than our ancestors... taks

odd, because by definition, 100 is average, i.e. whatever the average is calculated to be, it is set to 100 and the rest is based off of that... taks

even with verification that you've answered ALL of the questions 'correctly', it still maxes out around 140... taks

while i can't comment on how it works in canada, the top 5% or so wage earners here pay 53% (or something to that affect) of the taxes. mid to upper-ranged folk get hit with about another 40% or so (i fall into that bracket myself). i just happen to work in a field that pays quite well without a mad dash for cash... two-party systems are almost becoming an automatic these days. even here we had several back in the 1800s. they all slowly faded and joined each other to the eventual democrat and republican parties we have now. oddly, prior to the civil war, the roles of the two parties were actually reversed from what they are now... that's actually where my problem lies. i.e. if i get beat up, it's assault. if the same guy beats up someone that's gay, it's a hate crime. as a result, the gay guy's life is worth more than mine? why? i kinda thought ALL crime is motivated by hate of some sort and just because that person is some kind of minority, they shouldn't be treated any differently. the problem is that economic impact actually creates more of what you're trying to avoid in the long run. ALSO, most greenhouse gasses are attributable to natural causes, e.g. plankton in the ocean, volcanoes, etc. the human affect on these is minimal at best AND, the number one gas is actually water vapor (95%). in short, the impact of anything we try to do will only wreak economic hazards without actually solving any problems. i think the reasons for reducing pollution should be removed from the warming problem... we should reduce emissions for health reasons first (regardless of the warming impact of human activity, pollution just isn't healthy). typically people with neo-socialist political ideals don't care too much for increased military spending. however, i do recognize canada's "lacking" in that area so some lattitude should be expected. hehe, not exactly what i was referring to... assuming things would be better stricly because of kerry is a bit optimistic. given our current state of affairs, one must remember that even the president can't just go in and "reverse" everything. people forget that even clinton went to "war" 4 times while in office... it's just that those wars were more popular at the time. taks

i personally don't care if he follows us or not... just a little respect, that's all. taks

yes, logical... you could even say "no, the 20 twinkies a day make you look fat" but both have bad endings... taks

stripped straight out of the annals of BG2 goodness! taks

"does this dress make me look fat?" and other such illogical situations are perfect examples... task

if you're a capitalist (objectivist) such as i, graduated tax scales are discriminatory, and therefore too high. i'm personally against any income based tax but that's just me. the NDP programs i was reading about require taxes higher than we have in the US... therefore my comment of "high taxes". one note, you say "more evenly distriute the tax burden" then follow up with "high income earners pay more"... aren't those two statements contradictory yes, i had gotten that from their platform statement (yup, i actually read those things...). ugh... sorry to hear that. small party i assume? by our standards he is pretty far left. i personally never expected him to bow to any pressure from the US, though it seems he did bow to french pressure at times... i think as the leader of our northern neighbor, he could have been a bit more respectful... contrary to popular belief, these are all fairly libertarian views with the exception of the gay rights and abortion issues. being of that mindset myself, i take an extreme stand on any and all social programs funded by the government (health care, education, etc.) and particularly on taxes. i've always been pretty pro-choice though i'm uncertain why homosexuals need their rights spelled out any differently than mine... regardless of whether wealthy get tax cuts, they still pay 2/3 of all the taxes... even an across the board cut will benefit the wealthy more than the poor, that's just the way math works. the kyoto protocol is pretty weak and even most of the countries that signed up to it are saying they can't even meet the low cuts as is... not even close actually. this is the reason england, russia and the US aren't willing to sign up. just because someone doesn't support kyoto doesn't mean they aren't for agriculture. they might just be able to see the economic damage such "protocols" can cause... that'll far outweigh any benefits from cutting greenhouse gasses... ALL political parties have this problem. people tend to notice only those that sit in opposing camps, however. politics are corrupt in general, and i don't think i've yet heard a politician with a cure, other than his own resignation. that comment surprises me... out of curiosity, did he also attend the bilderberg meeting that was held concurrently in italy? an invite is generally a good sign of things to come... i suppose we're all allowed our opinions... taks

true logic? that no longer exists in the palestinian/jewish conflict... such emotional arguments can be counter to every other belief the holder has, yet they still fail to see the counter-parallel. taks

New Democratic Party... they fit our definition of liberal from what i was reading. green, social programs, high taxes, etc. maybe not far left, but certainly left. chretien is probably as far left as you can get in NA w/out moving to a socialist economy... taks

isn't the "conservative" platform in canada a bit more akin to being a centrist in the US? taks

btw, this is what you said that i was particularly targeting: "Yet it seems that the only time you hear of some organization trying to prevent an airing of something or a release of a movie that might be controversial, it is most certainly a conservative group leading the charge." so, how does that imply MY selective reasoning? you paint a broad picture of "conservative" intolerance, and then label me in that group yet I'M the one that's being selective. your original post had an entire paragraph regarding this concept and then you have a single aside that says "it disturbs me what the left did with the passion." get real man... observe your own focus before accusing others of failing to do so themselves... taks

oh wait a minute, because i didn't agree with you i'm a conservative? LOL! hardly. exactly what hatred and intolerance have i expressed? none that i can see. perhaps, a hatred or intolerance of a rampant lack of objectivity since YOU singled out conservative whining, not me. i personally could care less about the passion of the christ or fahrenheit 911. they're BOTH ridiculous to me. my only complaint, if you'll note, was that you seem to think freedom of speech is a one way street. you are dead wrong. freedom of speech allows ANYBODY to criticize, protest or debate ANY issue (exceptions already noted). perhaps you should put away the ad hominem attacks (accusing me of hatred???) and, again, view things objectively. taks

you're right about using direct quotes, phosphor. however, michael moore has a penchant for piecing together different quotes and news bits out of context which tends to imply a different meaning than what was originally intended. that's the intellectual dishonesty. you can do this with anyone and it distorts their meaning. taks

i call shennanigans! i DO SO have the right to tell you what you should or should not watch and i also have the right to tell you that you can't decide for yourself. you are under no obligation to listen. that's what freedom of speech means buddy... ALL speech is heard (with a few exceptions that include advocation of a criminal activity). why is it that every time this happens it seems like some conservative group is crying foul? um, how about the outcry over the movie the passion of christ? lots of liberals screaming there... or did you just forget about that? further, perhaps a decidely liberal media tends to focus more on conservative complaints and as a result, that's mostly what you hear? or maybe you're liberal and as a result, when there's something the liberal camp is complaining about you see it as just (because that's your ideology) but when the conservatives complain, it's censorship? perhaps you should step back and view the situation objectively. yes, michael moore has a right to publish his movies. companies have a right to show it or not. the news media even has a right to not report on it if they so choose (though that's crossing their own ethical boundaries if it constitutes news...). i have a right to watch the movie or tell you it's a bunch of crap and i won't attend. i can even tell you not to watch it if i so choose. taks

i dunno, maybe foxnews once in a while? oh wait, they're biased... forgot about that. they cover ALL news, not just a prison scandal... sheesh... taks