Is there a really smart, high IQ type conservative on this board?
- Thread starter Raglefant
- Start date
The 'Libertarian' types, since you are in such need to label, are in fact the most intelligent, likely the most successful and easily the better informed posters on here.
We school you regularly and bring up topics and points that neither the Liberals nor the Cons ever bring up.
It's so easy to call out your hypocrisy at times.
From what I have read and heard on the HR, radio and television the question is mute and worthless. I at this point have never met a , "Lib" who would know or could identify anything close to intelligence.
Sometimes I watch television with the volume on moot.
So you're the self aware and honest Libertarian then. I've heard stories of your existence but thought I might meet a sasquatch first.
If the modern American liberal is so "smart" why is it the Democrats are completely dependent on the young, dumb and poor to win elections? Kinda makes a person wonder...
Both parties are dependent on the dumb and poor to win elections. Both parties have their fair share of smart people, just not so many around here.
You might want to look at the election demographics before you speak. For example, if only people over 30 voted in the last election Obama would have lost. Although the under 30 voting block isn't very big - it made a huge difference because the Democrats so thoroughly dominated the naive vote.
No. But they are the most naive voting block among the age groups.
Probably not the right thread to be floundering around like this. For fvcks sake man, make a coherent point or go figure it out and try again another day.
In addition, this whole line of reasoning is pointless. It's a big country and there are a lot of voters. If one party has more dummies, it says nothing about who has more intellectuals overall, let alone on this board.
Are you really unable to grasp the obvious? Do I actually have to spell it out point by point? Good grief Mr high IQ.
Look at my first post. It really isn't a difficult ultimate concept to grasp.
But it suggests that the Dems are the only party that relies on the uneducated and poor to win elections. When I replied to point out that this is false, you wet yourself but kept talking even though there is nothing whatsoever more to say, because what I replied is true.
Why are you still talking now?
You can claim what you said is true. Its not statistically significant or substantive - but it is true. Lets get to the point - it's irrelevant if both sides have dumb voters. Of course they do. Over 100 million people vote in national elections. Only an imbecile would think this point in and of itself means something. What maters is which party is dependent on the dumb vote to win. That clearly is the Democratic party. Which leads any person with an IQ above 70 to logically come to the conclusion that the modern liberal agenda might not be so intelligent after all. Because if it was clearly such an intelligent platform the party wouldn't be dependent on dummies to win.
Bernie Goldberg talks about this liberal intelligence myth in one of his books. One example he used was john Kerry. When he ran for president the liberals trumpeted him as an east coast intellect - whereas George Bush was a southern dummy/hick. It came out later that George Bush actually had better grades than Kerry in college - and that definitely dispelled thr idea kerry was anything close to an intellectual.
What we experienced with John Kerry is the same nonsense you are spewing here.
Last edited:
Too much stupid. I appreciate the glorious illustration of the original point of the thread though.
Can someone enlighten me as to who Raglefant is formerly known as on HROT? I have my suspicions. There are only a fee posters historically who have his certain kind of slowness.
I'm an online community veteran who visited for the first time a few weeks ago. My conservative fvck face brother-in-law told me about it when I was destroying his political world over dinner on a recent trip back to the in-laws farm.
I've enjoyed my trip back to the minors thus far, but the bat boys such as yourself certainly think quite a lot of themselves.
I give no fuchs. I'm sorry your butt hurts, but you really did sit on the pipe yourself.
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - GBS
Metuo, this may apply here.
Ragle doesn't want an intellectual debate. He just wants to sit in his monkey cage and sling poop at anyone and everyone that walks by.
Metuo, this may apply here.
Ragle doesn't want an intellectual debate. He just wants to sit in his monkey cage and sling poop at anyone and everyone that walks by.
Thanks for the advice. It definitely appears to be the case with that guy.
I'm not particularly good at connecting new screen names to established posters, mostly because I don't care enough to be good at it. But I just assumed Raglefant is the handle WWJD uses when he's feeling extra frisky.
You wouldn't recognize an intellectual debate if it sat on your face. You can't have one without someone who is capable, which is sort of the point here. I'm sorry that makes you feel bad about yourself, but flinging insults won't change anything.
Similar threads
