IQ test for governmental support? (solution, dollars, compared, party)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=malamute;31311664]Why? We're not even allowing the Ten Commandments be posted in the schools. We're not allowing God or Jesus to be taught in the schools. Separation of Church and State you know.
Why are we teaching Darwinism if we don't allow it to play out? We're encouraging the least capable to breed, we're actually not taking care of the lower IQ types by encouraging them to have babies they could never support and cannot parent well.
We can take care of our least intelligent, but we shouldn't require they have babies. That's exactly how the system works.
Girl with IQ of 70, no babies -- she will have to work a menial job. Girl with IQ of 70 and babies, she will live a life of luxury, even be given a free cell phone, easy legal status and citizenship if she's from another country.
Why do some people continually post the most stupid things???..people on welfare
living a life of luxury.
Hey guess what, I just saw some people buying caviar, prime rib, champage using
welfare and them they drove away in a gold plated Denali with diamond
encrusted spinners.
We should consider going back to poor houses where the least capable are given a dormitory style room and a common eating area and some oversight.
Yes, let's stick them in poor houses with rampant sexual abuse, physical and
mental abuse and in some cases murder. Yeah, that will teach them a
lesson....USA...YEAH!!!
Anyone with a brain in their head (liberals are allowed to "take a knee" for
this discussion) would conclude that the least intelligent, least inventive
among our society, if given a financial incentive to reproduce, would do so, in
order to capture "incentives" provided by a misguided, confused liberal
government.
So let me get this straight?...you want to insinuate that certain people have a lower I.Q. than you, yet you start a debate whereas you tell the other half of people that would disagree with you not to debate...
Are you sure you want to be trumpeting anything to do with I.Q.??
Quote:
Of course, this has been realized. If the least creative, least productive,
are assingned to a lower economic class, one would assume, in the absence of
external influences, that the lower socio-economic class would have a lower
birth rate, consistent with their ability to support children.
The least creative???..post a link or b.s.
least productive???..post a link or b.s.
Quote:
one would assume
Ahhh..now we get to the basis of your rant..."assumptions."
Well you know what they say about assumptions...
The US government, embracing tenents of socialism from the initiative of the Johnson "Great Soceity" push, has embraced WIC and financial support for mothers with dependent children, regardless of the ability of the parents to provide or create a situation for productive citizens among their progeny.
Anyone with a brain in their head (liberals are allowed to "take a knee" for this discussion) would conclude that the least intelligent, least inventive among our society, if given a financial incentive to reproduce, would do so, in order to capture "incentives" provided by a misguided, confused liberal government.
Of course, this has been realized. If the least creative, least productive, are assingned to a lower economic class, one would assume, in the absence of external influences, that the lower socio-economic class would have a lower birth rate, consistent with their ability to support children.
With the modern welfare state, the whole concept of Prodictity confers more progeny (which is what would advance society) is turned upside down , and the least intelligent and productive are provided incentives for reproduction.
The net effect- More liberal policy= More citizens with lower IQs and less incentive to work. It is clear-liberalism promotes the destruction of society and reduced productivity of a nation. This insures more liberal politicians, yet ultimately results in the self destruction of the the nation.
Which do we choose? Placating liberals now, ensuring the demise of the nation? Or acknowledging reality and stop supporting self destructive national policy?
Which do we choose? Placating liberals now, ensuring the demise of the nation? Or acknowledging reality and stop supporting self destructive national policy?
Two points:
Most people receiving government benefits are in the work force.
Clinton (I believe most would consider him somewhat liberal) enacted policies that eviscerated a lot of social programs and made it far more difficult to obtain things like food stamps.
The US government, embracing tenents of socialism from the initiative of the Johnson "Great Soceity" push, has embraced WIC and financial support for mothers with dependent children, regardless of the ability of the parents to provide or create a situation for productive citizens among their progeny.
Anyone with a brain in their head (liberals are allowed to "take a knee" for this discussion) would conclude that the least intelligent, least inventive among our society, if given a financial incentive to reproduce, would do so, in order to capture "incentives" provided by a misguided, confused liberal government.
Of course, this has been realized. If the least creative, least productive, are assingned to a lower economic class, one would assume, in the absence of external influences, that the lower socio-economic class would have a lower birth rate, consistent with their ability to support children.
With the modern welfare state, the whole concept of Prodictity confers more progeny (which is what would advance society) is turned upside down , and the least intelligent and productive are provided incentives for reproduction.
The net effect- More liberal policy= More citizens with lower IQs and less incentive to work. It is clear-liberalism promotes the destruction of society and reduced productivity of a nation. This insures more liberal politicians, yet ultimately results in the self destruction of the the nation.
Which do we choose? Placating liberals now, ensuring the demise of the nation? Or acknowledging reality and stop supporting self destructive national policy?
A universal characteristic of liberals is obsession with spelling errors. Such an obsession reveals:
1. presumption of superiority for mastering the mundane, which, of course, can be remedied by simple spell checking for anyone who cares.
2. a personal lack of success in facets of life which really matter, therefore seeking the comfortable refuge of "spelling master".
3. an inability to focus on the "big picture" and focusing on meaningless details
4. an inability to formulate a cogent analysis of a topic- thus diverting and focusing on something they have really "mastered" (spelling, courtesy of spell checker)
Libs are priceless- they are like a bass biting on the wriggly worm that is a spelling error.
So let me get this straight?...you want to insinuate that certain people have a lower I.Q. than you, yet you start a debate whereas you tell the other half of people that would disagree with you not to debate...
Are you sure you want to be trumpeting anything to do with I.Q.??
The least creative???..post a link or b.s.
least productive???..post a link or b.s.
Ahhh..now we get to the basis of your rant..."assumptions."
Well you know what they say about assumptions...
Priceless-
So you are actually contending that those of higher incomes do not have higher IQs and that those with lower IQs have higher fertility rates?
I am afraid I cannot do all of your work for you. Just do a google search and stop being so lazy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
