[Shadowfax]

[quote=jficquette]While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John[/quote]
I have not read any of Rand’s works. They are just too damn long. I tried once but quickly lost interest. (And this is from someone who has read a lot of Tolstoy!)

John, I think you are giving too much creedence to an IQ test that doesn’t take into account what the intelligence is focused on or how it is measured. Setting aside the violent offenders, most people in prison these days were petty criminals (drug-related) trying to get ahead in the only way they had available to them. While many were unsuccessful at traditional forms of education, I am sure they were plenty “street smart” until they got caught. I don’t think you or I would last one day in their street environment. By the same measure, that makes us of a low IQ.

The only way to test my theory, sadly, is we need to throw the management of most Wall Street firms in jail, since they managed to lead criminal activites and not get caught, largely through influence over the laws themselves. Buy the votes on a bill that makes stealing legal. There’s IQ for you…The petty criminals just didn’t steal a large enough amount of money.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=jficquette]While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John[/quote]
I have not read any of Rand’s works. They are just too damn long. I tried once but quickly lost interest. (And this is from someone who has read a lot of Tolstoy!)

John, I think you are giving too much creedence to an IQ test that doesn’t take into account what the intelligence is focused on or how it is measured. Setting aside the violent offenders, most people in prison these days were petty criminals (drug-related) trying to get ahead in the only way they had available to them. While many were unsuccessful at traditional forms of education, I am sure they were plenty “street smart” until they got caught. I don’t think you or I would last one day in their street environment. By the same measure, that makes us of a low IQ.

The only way to test my theory, sadly, is we need to throw the management of most Wall Street firms in jail, since they managed to lead criminal activites and not get caught, largely through influence over the laws themselves. Buy the votes on a bill that makes stealing legal. There’s IQ for you…The petty criminals just didn’t steal a large enough amount of money.

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Butleroftwo]gandalf is this blogs Obama franchisee. Be careful with gandalf, he(?) pretends to be like everyone else until one of his core issues is discussed. He has tried to establish his character here by letting us know that he is Tall, rides a motorcycle, owns a business, is Columbia educated and is independent.
His only goal is to push Obama’s agenda of higher taxes, government control (left of center or way left of center only), strange foreign policy, elitism and whatever this mysterious president has on his list. I would guess that he walked away from a party meeting sometime in 2005 with a list of blogs that he needed to infiltrate. Since then we have been graced with his “Social Marketing” techniques from some unpublished manual.[/quote]

(yes, I am late to this thread. Catching up quickly though.)

Wow, someone’s been paying attention. Does this sort of thing count as stalking?

I dunno…from what you have summarized, this gandalf guy sounds kind of dreamy!

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Butleroftwo]gandalf is this blogs Obama franchisee. Be careful with gandalf, he(?) pretends to be like everyone else until one of his core issues is discussed. He has tried to establish his character here by letting us know that he is Tall, rides a motorcycle, owns a business, is Columbia educated and is independent.
His only goal is to push Obama’s agenda of higher taxes, government control (left of center or way left of center only), strange foreign policy, elitism and whatever this mysterious president has on his list. I would guess that he walked away from a party meeting sometime in 2005 with a list of blogs that he needed to infiltrate. Since then we have been graced with his “Social Marketing” techniques from some unpublished manual.[/quote]

(yes, I am late to this thread. Catching up quickly though.)

Wow, someone’s been paying attention. Does this sort of thing count as stalking?

I dunno…from what you have summarized, this gandalf guy sounds kind of dreamy!

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Butleroftwo]gandalf is this blogs Obama franchisee. Be careful with gandalf, he(?) pretends to be like everyone else until one of his core issues is discussed. He has tried to establish his character here by letting us know that he is Tall, rides a motorcycle, owns a business, is Columbia educated and is independent.
His only goal is to push Obama’s agenda of higher taxes, government control (left of center or way left of center only), strange foreign policy, elitism and whatever this mysterious president has on his list. I would guess that he walked away from a party meeting sometime in 2005 with a list of blogs that he needed to infiltrate. Since then we have been graced with his “Social Marketing” techniques from some unpublished manual.[/quote]

(yes, I am late to this thread. Catching up quickly though.)

Wow, someone’s been paying attention. Does this sort of thing count as stalking?

I dunno…from what you have summarized, this gandalf guy sounds kind of dreamy!

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Butleroftwo]gandalf is this blogs Obama franchisee. Be careful with gandalf, he(?) pretends to be like everyone else until one of his core issues is discussed. He has tried to establish his character here by letting us know that he is Tall, rides a motorcycle, owns a business, is Columbia educated and is independent.
His only goal is to push Obama’s agenda of higher taxes, government control (left of center or way left of center only), strange foreign policy, elitism and whatever this mysterious president has on his list. I would guess that he walked away from a party meeting sometime in 2005 with a list of blogs that he needed to infiltrate. Since then we have been graced with his “Social Marketing” techniques from some unpublished manual.[/quote]

(yes, I am late to this thread. Catching up quickly though.)

Wow, someone’s been paying attention. Does this sort of thing count as stalking?

I dunno…from what you have summarized, this gandalf guy sounds kind of dreamy!

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Butleroftwo]gandalf is this blogs Obama franchisee. Be careful with gandalf, he(?) pretends to be like everyone else until one of his core issues is discussed. He has tried to establish his character here by letting us know that he is Tall, rides a motorcycle, owns a business, is Columbia educated and is independent.
His only goal is to push Obama’s agenda of higher taxes, government control (left of center or way left of center only), strange foreign policy, elitism and whatever this mysterious president has on his list. I would guess that he walked away from a party meeting sometime in 2005 with a list of blogs that he needed to infiltrate. Since then we have been graced with his “Social Marketing” techniques from some unpublished manual.[/quote]

(yes, I am late to this thread. Catching up quickly though.)

Wow, someone’s been paying attention. Does this sort of thing count as stalking?

I dunno…from what you have summarized, this gandalf guy sounds kind of dreamy!

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]I second (third) that, Davelj. Believe it or not, I agree very much with all of your posts on this thread.
Thanks to Concho for his posts, too.
Great thread.[/quote]

ditto

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]I second (third) that, Davelj. Believe it or not, I agree very much with all of your posts on this thread.
Thanks to Concho for his posts, too.
Great thread.[/quote]

ditto

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]I second (third) that, Davelj. Believe it or not, I agree very much with all of your posts on this thread.
Thanks to Concho for his posts, too.
Great thread.[/quote]

ditto

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]I second (third) that, Davelj. Believe it or not, I agree very much with all of your posts on this thread.
Thanks to Concho for his posts, too.
Great thread.[/quote]

ditto

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]I second (third) that, Davelj. Believe it or not, I agree very much with all of your posts on this thread.
Thanks to Concho for his posts, too.
Great thread.[/quote]

ditto

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, when you’re thinking about those “generous” public benefits, don’t forget that most public employees also gave up retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. That’s a very big deal.[/quote]

And don’t forget that most public sector workers are supposed to be compensated for lower than industry salaries with better benefits, like retirement and health care, otherwise they couldn’t hire competent workers. (Hm, sounds like the same argument Wall Street makes about all those executive bonuses.) If they don’t compensate with benefits, those public sector employees would be doing a similar job out in industry. But in the past 10 years or so, industry has cut back salaries and benefits to become more profitable, so that makes the “government” jobs seem out of place in our current economy. Yet you still find out of control perks for the C-suite, so that “the economy is hurting our profitability” argument kinda falls flat.

Don’t misunderstand me, though, I don’t think ANYONE should be getting full salary paid to them after retiring as in some pension plans. Retirement isn’t supposed to be an income boondoggle. Instead, there should be a fund set up so that you receive some consistent income stream, since, theoretically your expenses should be lower as a retiree (minus any healthcare issues). It’s up to the individual to do some financial planning to knit togehter their pension income with other sources (savings, investments, 401(k) etc.) I think though that if a company commits to pay out certain benefits, that they’ve made a contract (generally speaking) with that employee and they should be made to follow through. I don’t think any company can foresee where they’ll be in 20 years, so maybe pensions like these are generally a bad idea.

Pensions (especially for public sector workers) that promise full pay after 20 years service should be outlawed. This includes MILITARY pensions and the double-dippers. Pensions are for retirees, not those that can still be gainfully employed. My tax dollars shouldn’t be syphoned off to pay Joe Solder a full pension while he works full time for a government contractor, whose projects are also ultimately paid for by our tax dollars! He can let those funds sit in an account somewhere (with tax penalties for withdrawal, just like a 401(k)) to be used when he or she really “retires.”

You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant]

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, when you’re thinking about those “generous” public benefits, don’t forget that most public employees also gave up retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. That’s a very big deal.[/quote]

And don’t forget that most public sector workers are supposed to be compensated for lower than industry salaries with better benefits, like retirement and health care, otherwise they couldn’t hire competent workers. (Hm, sounds like the same argument Wall Street makes about all those executive bonuses.) If they don’t compensate with benefits, those public sector employees would be doing a similar job out in industry. But in the past 10 years or so, industry has cut back salaries and benefits to become more profitable, so that makes the “government” jobs seem out of place in our current economy. Yet you still find out of control perks for the C-suite, so that “the economy is hurting our profitability” argument kinda falls flat.

Don’t misunderstand me, though, I don’t think ANYONE should be getting full salary paid to them after retiring as in some pension plans. Retirement isn’t supposed to be an income boondoggle. Instead, there should be a fund set up so that you receive some consistent income stream, since, theoretically your expenses should be lower as a retiree (minus any healthcare issues). It’s up to the individual to do some financial planning to knit togehter their pension income with other sources (savings, investments, 401(k) etc.) I think though that if a company commits to pay out certain benefits, that they’ve made a contract (generally speaking) with that employee and they should be made to follow through. I don’t think any company can foresee where they’ll be in 20 years, so maybe pensions like these are generally a bad idea.

Pensions (especially for public sector workers) that promise full pay after 20 years service should be outlawed. This includes MILITARY pensions and the double-dippers. Pensions are for retirees, not those that can still be gainfully employed. My tax dollars shouldn’t be syphoned off to pay Joe Solder a full pension while he works full time for a government contractor, whose projects are also ultimately paid for by our tax dollars! He can let those funds sit in an account somewhere (with tax penalties for withdrawal, just like a 401(k)) to be used when he or she really “retires.”

You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant]

[Shadowfax]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, when you’re thinking about those “generous” public benefits, don’t forget that most public employees also gave up retiree healthcare for new hires in the mid-90s. That’s a very big deal.[/quote]

And don’t forget that most public sector workers are supposed to be compensated for lower than industry salaries with better benefits, like retirement and health care, otherwise they couldn’t hire competent workers. (Hm, sounds like the same argument Wall Street makes about all those executive bonuses.) If they don’t compensate with benefits, those public sector employees would be doing a similar job out in industry. But in the past 10 years or so, industry has cut back salaries and benefits to become more profitable, so that makes the “government” jobs seem out of place in our current economy. Yet you still find out of control perks for the C-suite, so that “the economy is hurting our profitability” argument kinda falls flat.

Don’t misunderstand me, though, I don’t think ANYONE should be getting full salary paid to them after retiring as in some pension plans. Retirement isn’t supposed to be an income boondoggle. Instead, there should be a fund set up so that you receive some consistent income stream, since, theoretically your expenses should be lower as a retiree (minus any healthcare issues). It’s up to the individual to do some financial planning to knit togehter their pension income with other sources (savings, investments, 401(k) etc.) I think though that if a company commits to pay out certain benefits, that they’ve made a contract (generally speaking) with that employee and they should be made to follow through. I don’t think any company can foresee where they’ll be in 20 years, so maybe pensions like these are generally a bad idea.

Pensions (especially for public sector workers) that promise full pay after 20 years service should be outlawed. This includes MILITARY pensions and the double-dippers. Pensions are for retirees, not those that can still be gainfully employed. My tax dollars shouldn’t be syphoned off to pay Joe Solder a full pension while he works full time for a government contractor, whose projects are also ultimately paid for by our tax dollars! He can let those funds sit in an account somewhere (with tax penalties for withdrawal, just like a 401(k)) to be used when he or she really “retires.”

You guys want to get mad at someone, let’s take a hard look at the military welfare state. (Commence firing, all you ex-miliary types out there. Yes, I appreciate your service but as of 1973 or so, no one made you serve, so don’t act like it’s an entitlement that the rest of the population owes you because you chose to get shot at.) [end rant]

[Author]

Posts