Democracy and Capitalism

[Its_where_I_Belong]

Democracy rests on the education of the citizens to make decisions and to elect leaders to represent and protect their interest. This of course the short version and thorough the history of my DR, I can see how educating the majority of the population Democracy works. Ex. How by increasing the civic education, citizens are more likely to get involved in the political process, therefore less likely to sell their vote for a demagogue speech.

Arcangel,

I do not have all of your Micro and Macro economics qualifications. I am a hotel manager, graduated in BA from University of Montreal, but most likely a Dopminican in the heart since that beautiful country welcame me as reident for 2 years.

In DR, there is a big problem called "Corruption:. What there is democracy for if everyone you elect accept bribes? Where is democracy when the people cannot get an education if they don't have money? why is it that the governments do not propose an alternative for youngsters to finance their education. Make it free of charge!

Well that social service is costing a lot! But it can be financed from the same people's money. Raised again the salaries, take more deduction from gross salaries. I don't think that foreign investors will spit on DR for that reason:
Take for example BVI, Martinique and other Caribbean Islands, Mexico they have bigger salaries but still welcome regularly foreign investments.

There is also a law that would have to be adopt: Limitation of the amount of business capital to be transferred out of the island by foreigners.
apply a " Invest here, Keep it here and Spend it here!" policy.

We have to educate our shoe shine boys! Let's make education accesible for our sons, not only for the sons of big boss families of Sto Domingo!

But it always has been a problem in poor countries: The riches are getting richer by keeping the poors in the ignorance, so theyu can abuse, cheat them to get always richer.

So you were right EDUCATION is the key to it all


Cheers.

 

[mondongo]

O.K., a 171 IQ makes you one of the most intelligent people ever to walk the earth. you are smarter than Mozart and Copernicus. What is your educational background?

 

[NALs]

Raised again the salaries, take more deduction from gross salaries.

If by raising salaries you mean raising the minimum wage, keep in mind, every raise in minimun wage results in an increase in unemployment.

I don't think that foreign investors will spit on DR for that reason:
Take for example BVI, Martinique and other Caribbean Islands, Mexico they have bigger salaries but still welcome regularly foreign investments

Those countries amassed their increasing salaries through freer trade and inviting foreign investment, just how the DR is doing as we speak.

In fact, it appears that this country is going to end this year with an economic growth rate of around 7%, much higher than I had anticipated at 5% and I'm an optimist!

This means, average wealth and production increase in the country by 7% this year, or if we manage to hold this for a decade, that means a 70% increase of average wealth every 10 years.

China showed remarkable 12% growth for the past couple of decades, meaning China's average wealth increases by 120% every decade, more than double!

Much of the wealth apparent in the DR today came chiefly during the 1990s, this is especially true among the middle class which is bigger than ever.

There is also a law that would have to be adopt: Limitation of the amount of business capital to be transferred out of the island by foreigners.
apply a " Invest here, Keep it here and Spend it here!" policy.

This will scare away the biggest fishes in the foreign investment sphere.

We tried this for a time with Balaguer and it did not worked. The economy fell into a duldrum.

We have to educate our shoe shine boys! Let's make education accesible for our sons, not only for the sons of big boss families of Sto Domingo!

Last time I checked, most of the shoe shine kids are shoe shining because their parents are forcing them out of school and putting them to work.

For those children who are orphans, they are most likely finding a way to make money to survive.

For the latter, more orphanages would be a good idea, but the first issue is not easily solved since problem are the parents, not the kid.

But it always has been a problem in poor countries: The riches are getting richer by keeping the poors in the ignorance, so theyu can abuse, cheat them to get always richer.

This is bull in my opinion.

When you remove the plight of the Haitians in this country (who tend to be the poorest of the poor in many cases), you will noticed that the average standard of living has risen in the past 40 years.

Trust me when I tell you that this issue of sharp contrasts between rich and middle classes vs. poor nationwide was not a nationwide problem for many years.

Why? Because for many years, pretty much everyone was poor, with few exception. Today, the contrasts are evident everywhere, why?

Because there are more people doing well than ever before.

This phenomenon is called a growing economy and a growing middle class.

What will not happen is poor people gaining wealth over night. Much of what is necessary for gaining wealth is pure state of mind, the rest is physical and mental ability, and initiative. But, state of mind is a huge part.

I can guarantee you that if you never picture yourself bettering your life where you are right now, chances are you will not better yourself.

So you were right EDUCATION is the key to it all

Education can be a key, but only in conjunction with the other essentials needed to make all of this work properly.

Look at Cuba, very high literacy rate and yet, are they progressing? They still drive 1960s American muscle cars, particularly in Havana.

That is quite an obvious answer!

-NAL

 

[newyorksharkbar]

Nal this is a great post and I think you hit the nail right on the head.

 

[Texas Bill]

observer keen---

i have never said a dictator, but emphatically said " dictatorial institution".
texas bill, there is something in linguistics called " contextual and semantic evolution"_ a term may have had a totally different meaning from what it contextually has today. look at the term gay. it used to mean happy and content, but now generally describes " a homosexual person".
you are also wrong on anarchy_ anarchy means the absence of an enforcing government.
you are calling people liberals as if the term were derogatory. contrary to popular misconception, caused perhaps by selective amnesia, the industrial revolution in britain was created by liberals. do you remember ricardo? he is considered one of the fathers of capitalism. remember all the progressist british philosophers, they were the original liberals_ remember bertrand russel, mills, jeremy bentham, and berkley.
texas bill,you have called me an "uneducated mind"_ without bragging, i have a certified 171 iq, fluent in 4 languages. i am a logical puzzle-maker for a small newsletter on line. i have never taken notes in advanced calculus and i have missed many classes, but i still manage to have a perfect score for midterm.
mondongo, if you are competent in physics, we can interchange ideas, i have some crazy ideas in physics. for instance, i have come up with a tentative theory based on what i call " alternating concentric bubbled universes" in an attempt to explain the photonic phenomenon described by the "coppenhaggen interpretation"( interference patterns, both constructive and destructive, observed even after the experimenter shoots one single photon at a time)
there also is a cool problem that i have solved from russia about universal gravitation that is very interesting. i can send it to you if you do not mind.
have a good night!

I have searched for the reference you make to my calling you an "uneducated mind', but, for the life of me, I can't seem to find it. Please enlighten me as to this reference.
Since I only have an IQ of 146, you would say that I must bend to your superior intellect. Got news for you, my friend, I don't bend to condesention in any form.
Your reference to "dictatorial institutions" falls on deaf ears. Did you coin that yourself or is it accepted by philosophers in general. i see that you also refer to the early government of the US as being an "dictitorial institution"... Geez, I always thought it was a Republic! Must I, therefore stand corrected in light of your superior intellect?? Also, where isan effective central government in a "pure" democracy? Doesn't a "pure" democracy imply the absence of an effective central government when the people vote for each and every action to be taken by that "dictatorial institution"?? As to "liberals", I refer to the "current breed" of those personified by that arch-coward Teddy Kennedy. How the people of Mass. could vote for such a person so lacking in personal integrity is really beyound me. He should still be serving time for his abandonment of his companion on that cold night. And don't attempt to stroke me with semantics. That's really not honesty coming from one who professes to be an intellect. Say what you think, don't beat around the bush. If you can't talk on our level, then fade away. We really don't need such because we're really simple people with a simple vocabulary.
While you're at it, take the rest of my commentary and speak to that in context!
Texas Bill

 

[observer keen]

texas bill, go to "history lessons", page 10, posting # 99, last sentence of your posting.

 

[Rick Snyder]

Democracy and capitalism go hand in hand and make for good bed partners. This is true for any type of democracy and there are many types of democracy. Liberal democracy, Representative democracy, Athenian democracy and many more.
There seems to be those that think that the DR should be under a 'benevolent and transitionery dictatorship' or some other hodge podge of words. I have a very hard time of equating the word "dictatorship" with the words "benevolent" and/or "transitionary" unless you are trying to imply the writings of "Marx". I think it has been proven over the years that even though he had good intensions he was speaking out of his arse.

Now as Texas Bill said in his little history lesson, the word democracy hasn't been expanded upon in this thread and I am guilty of this in a separate thread. A democracy necessarily implies a vote where 'benevolent and transitionery dictatorship' necessarily does not. Even if the initial phase was a 'benevolent and transitionery dictatorship' then the only purpose was to implace the will of a singular on the people so as to establish a specific framework. In democracy, the will of the majority can and does change and things are fluid. That is not true in a 'benevolent and transitionery dictatorship'.

Certainly the ideal of a benevolent dictator, who will later step down voluntarily, who will serve the masses and increase the productivity of the whole has some desirability, it neglects the fact that people are different and combine together to provide uneven distribution of skills. This was a problem with Marxism. While the theory had a wonderful result as its goal, it neglected the differences that inherently exist in people.Democracy does force a will on the people, but not the will of a singular, and the will can and does change. It allows for the uneven distribution of skills but does not inherently take care of those with fewer skills. Each have their own problems but they are opposite ends of the spectrum.Democracy does take them into account as it allows for individualized opportunity. This occurs at the cost of communal equality. But then, communal eqaulity can only occur in a benevolent dictatorship. This implies that such a person could be found to rule the people and my honest opinion is that only "God", regardless of whichever name he goes under, qualifies for such an office.

Democracy on the other hand is intended to change as people change. That is why the US has the longest standing constitution of any country. Granted we are a republic and not a true democracy, but it is the maleability that allows the constitution to adapt as times change. It also provides the consistency necessary without, ideally, the detriment of the individual.

Quote by Nals:
"Because for many years, pretty much everyone was poor, with few exception. Today, the contrasts are evident everywhere, why?"

Was this maybe due to - (DICTATORSHIP?)

Quote by Nals:
"Because there are more people doing well than ever before.

This phenomenon is called a growing economy and a growing middle class".

Is maybe this due to - (CONSTITUTION AND A DEMOCRACY?)

It is at this point that I will say that the type of democracy that the DR has is a representative democracy but at the same time, IMHO, it has an Oligarchy and a kleptocracy combined.Oligarchies can sometimes become instruments of transformation, insisting that monarchs or dictators share power, thereby opening the door to power-sharing by other elements of society. An example of this process occurred when English nobles banded together in the year 1215 to force a reluctant King John of England to sign the Magna Carta, a tacit recognition both of King John's waning political power and of the existence of an incipient oligarchy. As English society continued to grow and develop, the Magna Carta was repeatedly revised in 1216,1217 and in 1225 guaranteeing greater rights to greater numbers of people, thus setting the stage for the British constitutional monarchy. "Kleptocracy (sometimes Cleptocracy) (root: Klepto+cracy = rule by thieves) is a pejorative, informal term for a government so corrupt that no pretense of honesty remains. In a kleptocracy the mechanisms of government are almost entirely devoted to taxing the public at large in order to amass substantial personal fortunes for the rulers and their cronies (collectively, kleptocrats), or to keep said rulers in power. Kleptocrats typically use money laundering and/or anonymous banking to protect and conceal their illegal gains".
What form of government is best for the DR? In my opinion the best would be the Athenian democracy (the first democracy)as was practiced in Athens in the years 508 BC to 322 BC. It remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people did not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but voted on legislation and executive bills in their own right. Participation was by no means open to all inhabitants of Athens, women were not allowed to partake,but the in-group of participants was constituted with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal. Never before have so many people spent so much of their time in governing themselves. For a number of reasons that I don't think I need to go into I will say that I don't think this form of government will work here.

What else is there? Since 2003 a majority of the world's people live in representative democracies (including constitutional monarchies with a strong representative branch)—the first time in history that this has been true.
How about Direct democracy which in its traditional form is rule by the people through referenda. The people are given the right to pass laws, veto laws and withdraw support from a representative (if the system has proxies) at any time. Canada and Switzerland use this form of government. Another distinctive example comes from the United States, where, despite being a federal republic where no direct democracy exists at the federal level, over half the states (and many localities) provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures" or "ballot questions") and the vast majority of the states have either initiatives and/or referenda.
Unlike a few countries that still exist with the suppression of their people, the DR has done away with their dictator, implemented a constitution with a bill of rights, signed the UN bill of rights, elected their government officials and now only need to hone in on getting good representation into office. The basic groundwork has been laid now it only needs the people to take an active part to better the system. If you can get the DR to follow a truer form of democracy then you will see capitalism take off like it never has before.

Rick

 

[Texas Bill]

texas bill, go to "history lessons", page 10, posting # 99, last sentence of your posting.

I just did. Again, you should review the history of the time and you'll find me correct. So much for "uneducated". Your's lacks a bit, methinks.

Texas Bill

 

[NALs]

Quote by Nals:
"Because for many years, pretty much everyone was poor, with few exception. Today, the contrasts are evident everywhere, why?"

Was this maybe due to - (DICTATORSHIP?)

In part yes and in part no.

The country was pretty poor well before Trujillo rose to power, with upper classes being marginally better off than the masses.

Often enough, the difference between upper classes and the masses was that the masses lived in virtual bohios, while the upper classes lived in modest houses, nothing of ostentatious proportions. The middle class was unknown.

Not so today, plus today we have something called the growing middle class.

This new class simply did not existed until the 1970s when a middle class developed in Santo Domingo.

In the 1980s the country hit an economic crisis due to slumping sugar prices, general unfriendly attitude by the government towards foreign investors, and a few years of PRD rule - which ironically they left the country in the hands of the IMF! Why do I get the feeling history just finished repeating itself?

Then came the 1990s, in the beginning it appeared to be no different from 1980s, but then Balaguer began opening the economy to international trade and foreign investment began to increase. Leonel came to power and finally removed a peace of legislation that used to prohibit foreigners from owning property out right and made the government and economy ripe for investment and growth and voila, not only did the Dominican economy sky rocket to a stunning average 7% growth from 1996 to 2000, but the middle class blossom from just under 1 million, to around 3 million and the middle class spread to other major cities.

The adversities created in the 1980s were completely erased in the boom of the 1990s.

After hitting a brick wall in 2003, the country now seems to be back on track to spectacular growth around 7% again, this year alone!

Generally, sales volumes have increased, spending is up, confidence is up, investments are up, things are finally looking well, after such bitter start to this millenium. Some things are still up for grabs (electricity, oil, etc), but whatelse is news?!

Ironically, the country hit rock bottom for a second time after Trujillo during PRD administration headed by Hippo. Hmm, could there possibly be a correlation or is it just pure coincidence?

Quote by Nals:
"Because there are more people doing well than ever before.

This phenomenon is called a growing economy and a growing middle class".

Is maybe this due to - (CONSTITUTION AND A DEMOCRACY?)


Rick

The current constitution has been around since the 1960s, with modifications done along the way.

Democracy? Yes, the wealthiest countries on earth today are, for the most part, democracies and investors in democracies invest in other stable, pro-business democracies, thus being democratic is essential, unless the country is sitting on a big puddle of oil!

However, democracy alone is not sufficient enough to explain the growth of the middle class here, because the economy and the middle class began to grow after the government became more business friendly, more open to trade and officially welcoming and encouraging foreign investment.

-NAL

 

[observer keen]

dictatorship, what it is not!

rick, the problem comes with an association of the term with tyrant. the relationship between the two is of an element and its set. in other words, every tyrant is a dictator, but every dictator is not necessarily a tyrant. even in mathematics, people would sometimes conclude with a converse-based fallacy.
the history of the world is full of benevolent dictators such as peter the great in russia, mustafa ataturk in turkey, charlemagne with the caroligians and so on.
as i have told you, sometimes, a transition that retricts certain liberties for the benefit of tomorrow is critical. we do it all the times with our kids. it is called differed gratification, it is no different for the masses which happen to have many shortcomings. the transitional dictatorial institution that i have envisioned is one free of ego-mania, and sees itself as a means to an end rather than an end to itself.
remember the early american federation, and the philadelphia convention. what do you think the electoral college was intended to preserve? it was intended to preseve the institutional dictatorship of the likes of madison, adams, franklin and jefferson when it comes to choosing a government, the same brilliant minds that initially constituted the convention. why do you think that in theory the delegates of the electoral college may change the popular majority-choice of their repective counties? because of benevolent paternalism. it is quite possible that an uneducated american populace may choose a charismatic imcompetent. in fact, a study conducted by a prominent political scientist at the university of chicago demnonstrates that 70-80% of the american population have no understanding of basic sientific concepts_ such statistics led him to conlude that the american polulace is incapable of succesfully participating in the democratic process for certain key-issues are beyond its comprehension such as the stem-cell controversy. this paternalism can be seen even with the issue of pedophilia. for instance, kids by their very innocence would prefer the company of pedophiles for the latter tend to be excessively charming, a ploy used to lure children into their perverted world; but don't we keep these guys away from our kids, and force them to register. if it were up to our kids, charming pedophiles would have run all kindergardens. this sad analogy clearly explains my points, and no further explanation is in my view necessary.

to texas bill:
with an iq of 146, you are smarter than more than 99% of the human population. you are in fact 6 points above the minimal mark of genius which is 140. with your iq, you are potentially capable of making breakthroughs in science or in mathematics. in fact, calling yourself simple-minded is cruely sacarstic, and more condescending than i would ever appear to be.

to mondongo:
i studied analytical philosophy( logics), and i am furthering my mathematical education with a concentration on physics.
my intellectual interests vary from psychology, politics to mathematics. i had fallen in love with the vienna circle and its logical positivism. are you familiar with wittgenstein? i have even attempted to develop a tentative theory dubbed " sociological positivism" in which i would attack traditional wisdom with an analytical sword. i have used it to debunk many fallacies of traditional wisdom. i do not think that my philosophical speculations are quite suitable for this forum, so you are interested in forgering an intellectual friendship, you can send me a private message.by the way, my favorite contemporay intellectual is howard bloom. he is the author of "the lucifer principle". check it out! this guy will stimulate your mind beyond your wildest dreams.
ps: your mention of mozart and coppernicus strike odd, the human is not getting dumber but smarter. there are many unfulfilled geniuses more smarter than these guys that are living in dr and haiti, but somehow had failed to self-actualize. just because a tomato seed has failed to develop into a juicy tomato does not mean that that i would have been more juicy than the famously juicy ones. there is something called, being born in the wrong time.
there are mathematicains of gauss' caliber in today's world, but happen to be less accomplished. it is worth noting that i am not presuming to be one of those.

 

[Texas Bill]

Observer Keen--

There you go again, pardner---

I said "we are simple people with simple vocabularies".
I really hate being mis-quoted---

Get it right, next time.

As to my IQ, I've really never given it very much thought. It has always been there and I've always accepted it as such. I don't think it important enough to raise a flag over and salute it.

BTW, Robert might want to charge you for the continuous advertising of your individual accomplishments.

At what colleges/universities do you have the priviledges of speaking? With a mind such as yours, they must be clamoring for your attention.

AND, brush up on your typing, or at least edit before publishing.

Texas Bill
"The Eyes of Texas are upon YOU"!

 

[Texas Bill]

Congratulations, Rick!!

That posting about "Democracy" is worthy of an editorial!

It's the best I've seen on this thread/board!

Keep up the thought process- it's worth honing!

Real Proud of you, Son!

Texas Bill

 

[Rick Snyder]

Thank you Texas Bill but in reality it's not my thought process that I am trying so desperately to hone, it is rather the thought process of those that have the privilege to vote in this country.

The bar, that seems to be so high to hurdle, are the "ism's" that are reverberated on this thread/board be it altruism, optimism, cynicism, pessimism, fatalism or nihilism. Then there are some like Nal's with his mysticism of everything progressively getting better with a bright future ahead without taking into account that if the present course is continued without some major changes being implemented, not just talked about (ism's), that the end result will not be what people want or expect.

Observer keen please don't respond to this post as it isn't directed toward you. Because of your egoism you really don't apply any useful information to the threads.

Rick

 

[Texas Bill]

Thank you Texas Bill but in reality it's not my thought process that I am trying so desperately to hone, it is rather the thought process of those that have the privilege to vote in this country.

The bar, that seems to be so high to hurdle, are the "ism's" that are reverberated on this thread/board be it altruism, optimism, cynicism, pessimism, fatalism or nihilism. Then there are some like Nal's with his mysticism of everything progressively getting better with a bright future ahead without taking into account that if the present course is continued without some major changes being implemented, not just talked about (ism's), that the end result will not be what people want or expect.

Observer keen please don't respond to this post as it isn't directed toward you. Because of your egoism you really don't apply any useful information to the threads.

Rick

AMEN!!!!!

My sentiments, EXACTLY!!!

Texas Bill
"The Eyes of Texas Are Upon YOU!!"

 

[observer keen]

useful is not synonymous with valid!

texas bill, i have not misquoted you. as to your inquiring about my educational background, i had once mentioned in one of in my previous postings that i have a bachelor degree in analytical philosophy from duke university.
why am not i lecturing at the best universities?, which is a sarcasm rather than an honest question, but i will attempt to answer you. von savant, the woman with the highest recorded iq( 200) is not lecturing anywhere. firstly, one needs credentials to teach in college, and secondly, iq does not measure the extent of one's knowledge, but rather the extent of one's learning ability.
in case you have failed to realize it, a very high iq is no less abnormal than a very low iq, and as such it may have a certain detrimental effect on the bearer.
in fact, if one were to graph a logistic iq-success function, the graph would not be an increasing curve throughout the domain. it would be more like an upside-down parabola for it seems that after an iq of 160, iq seems to have no positive or even a negative effect on the bearer. in fact, there is something called regression which suggests that very high iq is evolutionarily unstable. as you may have noticed, the descedendents of albert eistein have been far from being eisteins themselves.
i am not into displaying condescension( or condescendence) toward anybody. why are so hostile toward my opinions?

rick:
useful is relative, and i am not here for sharing information, i am here to think and stimulate thinking. i am so sorry if my opinions have somehow challenged the orthodoxy of your comfort-zone.
by the way, i am not offended by the word "egoism", the latter is not synonymous with egotism. try to read ayn rand's novels.

 

[Texas Bill]

Observer Keen---

FYI, your intellectualized attempts at stimulating "thinking" have fallen short of your goal.

The cause???

Your obvious preoccupation with your image of yourself, which, I assure you, is NOT shared by this particular "Internet Community".

Ah, yes, "The Fountainhead". The story of a brilliant young archetect (sp), struggling for the acceptance of his advanced ideas amid the prevailing "conventialism" of the time. A very entertaining story. What's your point? Are you equating yourself with that particular character?

Not a good simily, if you are.
Texas Bill

 

[observer keen]

how am i obsessing with myself? you had asked a question which i honestly answered. i have even followed your advice on editing and paying more attention to my typing.
by the way, you have meant to write "simile" not simily. aslo, simile refers to comparative assessment of unlike objects or elements. for instance, he is cruel like a tiger. tiger and human beings are of different definitional categories. in other words, simile is inappropriate in the context of your sarcasm.
my iq mark was a vague reference_ it is not about pride, for one cannot be proud of anything that had preceded one's conscious effort. what matters is not how high is one's iq but rather what one does with the gift. i have not optimized my life with my iq; frankly, in some cases, it has become a deterence.
by the way, arrogance does not invalidate the arrogant's statements for arrogance does not describe the truth-value of a statement but rather describes the manner in which it is being expressed. for instance,i have seen many individuals praising "humbleness" as if it were some kind of noble trait. i have got news for you: it is not a noble trait, but rather dishonesty to oneself, a ploy utilized not to arouse the jealousy of the loser, or it may well be a sucker's attitude. one goes out and does the wrong thing, he has himself to blame, but if he studies hard to become a successful neurosurgeon, he is automatically expected to give all the credit to god. it is as if human autonomy were selectively convenient(only when we f...ck up, we seem to be held responsible). but human promiscuity( the primary cause of aids) is as much a man's action as staying late to study for his medical exam. however, when he succeeds in the latter, god gave him the brain, but when he destroys himself because of the former, he has created his penis with his own excessive sexual drive. isn't that intellectual dishonesty?
of course, we would hate to challenge the walls of our comfort-zone_ that is perhaps why we seem to have never asked the following question: how could satan reportedly succeed in seducing adam and eve( a perfectly created couple) but not job ( an imperfecty created man who had presumably inherited the original sin). it is as if someone succeeds in pulvarizing "diamond" with his bare hands, but finds himself incapable of breaking an "egg". furthermore, if one needs divine protection to resist satanic temptation, then where and how did job find the courage to resist such a colossal malefic force that is satan? after all yahweh had agreed not to interfere. instead of considering these obvious contradictions which may shatter the walls of your comfort-zone, you would probably call me of kinds of satanic names as if such accusations would nullify these obvious contradictions in the first place.

is "humbleness" a noble trait or a sucker's attitude??
imagine being in a jungle, with scarse resources, and you make the mistake of humbling yourself. what would likely happen? game theory predicts that you would increase the likelihood of attacks against yourself for weaker individuals who generally would have stayed away from you, would attack you in direct reaction to your false advertisement of weakness. furthermore, if humbleness had had any evolutionary advatage, animals would not inflate themseves in battle (i.e frogs) or tuck out their hair or feathers when confronted by a competitor.
your problem with me seems to be my independence or my lack of humbleness.

ps: texas bill, if approximating the extent of your intelligence was so unimportant to you, why did you decide to take an iq test in the first place, which had assured your ego of the amazing 146. you must have smiled with the widest smirk upon receiving your test score, probably cursed that annoying teacher in elementary school who could not understand your unusually faster mind. after all, i am not aware of any profession that makes of an iq test a prerequisite. here is the truth: you were trying to get into mensa to hang out with the nerdy brainiacs so you took the damn test, wasn't it the case?.

 

[Chris]

Just a note to the brainy bunch. You must have missed it.. this is a DR board. Could we now have some brilliant DR related treatises or hypotheses or simply discussions? Perhaps a debate or two? Or are those iq's getting in the way of sticking to the subject matter? :ermm:

 

[Texas Bill]

Just a note to the brainy bunch. You must have missed it.. this is a DR board. Could we now have some brilliant DR related treatises or hypotheses or simply discussions? Perhaps a debate or two? Or are those iq's getting in the way of sticking to the subject matter? :ermm:

Chris;

You're right!

No more postings to this nerd's convolutions.

It is evident thatall he wishes to do is look in the mirror and say to himself, "Well, I just put another in his "place", didn't I?"

I'm outa here.

Texas Bill

 

[observer keen]

texas bill, that is not the case, my friend. it is not about iq. iq is peripheral in here. the key is to challenge our comfort-zones_ by doing that,we are honoring the most human of our characteristics, that is curiosity. why don't we ask questions about god? it is not irrelevant_ after all dr is catholic, and religious affairs permeate everyday life in dr from praying for favors to cursing one's enemies.
i wish there were many more mondongos on this forum!
the truth is, only three of my postings peripherally mentioned iq. i have been posting on this forum for quite sometime and on various subjects, but my critics have conveniently chosen to ignore this fact to concentrate on a supposed melogamania. whenever a guy is not begging for approval, he is automatically assumed to be a megalomaniac.