Girls win all 5 top prizes in The National STEM Competition

[GreenAndBlue]

Men with higher logic does think better than women


UK study claims men have higher average I.Q. than women
Saturday, August 27, 2005

In a study accepted for publication by the British Journal of Psychology, Dr. Paul Irwing (Manchester Business School, Senior Lecturer in Organizational Psychology) and Prof. Richard Lynn (University of Ulster, Professor Emeritus) conclude that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests. The study also found that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees. When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

IQ of 125 or higher? That is 5% of the population. So take the vote away from 95% of the population??

Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

No

You keep ignoring the universal law of might makes right ... also ignoring history that always having the wise rising and stopping the unwise from voting

This is what China has learned and the wise founders had set up to make this the best nation

People will also be stopped from debating if their logic is too low

Wasting time is what happens when the unwise debates .. that lowers the nations productivity and everyone suffers

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Men with higher logic does think better than women


UK study claims men have higher average I.Q. than women
Saturday, August 27, 2005

In a study accepted for publication by the British Journal of Psychology, Dr. Paul Irwing (Manchester Business School, Senior Lecturer in Organizational Psychology) and Prof. Richard Lynn (University of Ulster, Professor Emeritus) conclude that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests. The study also found that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees. When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

IQ of 125 or higher? That is 5% of the population. So take the vote away from 95% of the population??

Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

Trump has the men on his side so yes he has the power to save this nation by using the law of might makes right !!

 

[bripat9643]

Hearty congratulations to those young ladies.

They did not just sit around moaning about the injustice and discrimination that they faced.

Instead, they worked hard, behaved themselves, and achieved something constructive and positive.

Excellent role models, indeed!

What "injustice?" Males are the ones who are discriminated against in school. This science contest is just one more example of that.

 

[Anathema]

...Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

Actually it will simply be left out of the new American Constitution when we rewrite the document after the Conservative Revolution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Men with higher logic does think better than women


UK study claims men have higher average I.Q. than women
Saturday, August 27, 2005

In a study accepted for publication by the British Journal of Psychology, Dr. Paul Irwing (Manchester Business School, Senior Lecturer in Organizational Psychology) and Prof. Richard Lynn (University of Ulster, Professor Emeritus) conclude that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests. The study also found that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees. When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

IQ of 125 or higher? That is 5% of the population. So take the vote away from 95% of the population??

Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

No

You keep ignoring the universal law of might makes right ... also ignoring history that always having the wise rising and stopping the unwise from voting

This is what China has learned and the wise founders had set up to make this the best nation

People will also be stopped from debating if their logic is too low

Wasting time is what happens when the unwise debates .. that lowers the nations productivity and everyone suffers

Your idea that "might makes right" worked in the distant past. Not anymore.

If the president tried to take away people's right to vote, the mighty would band together and defend those who are not able to fight. We, in the US, defend the US Constitution. And that means you have to get a constitutional amendment to remove women's right to vote or to create some sort test for voting.

It will never happen. You can keep pleading with the examples you have, but it will never happen.

 

[WinterBorn]

Men with higher logic does think better than women


UK study claims men have higher average I.Q. than women
Saturday, August 27, 2005

In a study accepted for publication by the British Journal of Psychology, Dr. Paul Irwing (Manchester Business School, Senior Lecturer in Organizational Psychology) and Prof. Richard Lynn (University of Ulster, Professor Emeritus) conclude that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests. The study also found that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees. When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

IQ of 125 or higher? That is 5% of the population. So take the vote away from 95% of the population??

Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

Trump has the men on his side so yes he has the power to save this nation by using the law of might makes right !!

Trump has the men on his side to a point. Destroying the US Constitution is where they will draw the line.

You talk about having an IQ of 125 to vote? Do you think 95% of the population will sit idly by while their right to vote is taken away without a constitutional amendment?

Many of the men swore an oath to defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath had no expiration date. I will fight to preserve the US Constitution, and so will many other men.

 

[WinterBorn]

...Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

Actually it will simply be left out of the new American Constitution when we rewrite the document after the Conservative Revolution.

And you think even a simple majority will vote in favor of not having a right to vote? Good luck with that.

 

[Andylusion]

...Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

Actually it will simply be left out of the new American Constitution when we rewrite the document after the Conservative Revolution.

And you think even a simple majority will vote in favor of not having a right to vote? Good luck with that.

No I don't think people will agree to what is good and right.

I think it is wrong to allow people who do not contribute, or who directly benefit from the government to have a vote on things that will destroy the entire country.

We saw this is Greece. Greece was not a fluke. People had been warning that the entitlements and government programs of Greece was absolutely unsustainable. But because so many people benefited from pillaging the nation, every time the people who knew what was going on, tried reform the system to avoid eventual destruction of the country.... the public voted heavily against it.

Well, all the number crunchers were dead on right, and the entire public living off the government, found out they were wrong.

Same is true of Venezuela. Everyone predicted everything that happened in Venezuela, including people in Venezuela. But the people with the least invested in the country, voted to destroy those who had the most invested in the country.

Right now in the US, we know for a fact that Medicare and Social Security will clearly eventually destroy the country.

It's not really up for debate except by those who ignore basic math, just like the people in Greece ignored math, and the people in Venezuela ignored math.

The same group of people who destroyed those countries, is now in the process of destroying our country.

There is a huge danger in giving people who have nothing to lose, or people who live off the largess of the government, access to how the entire country is run.

The irony of this, is that in any other context, everyone, including yourself and every left-winger in the country, would instinctively understand this concept.

For example, if the CEO, or the entire executive board of Boeing, was on the committee that approved government contracts.... we would all understand that there is a huge conflict of interest, between the interest of the entire country, and the interest of the person collecting government money.

But what is the difference between that situation, and someone voting on whoever will continue to give them money at home? Nothing. It's the same conflict of interest between what is best for the entire country, and the interest of the individual living off the government.

So back to the main point... I would agree with you that the public will never vote to limit who can vote. I agree.

But I would still say that it is obvious that they should.

 

[WinterBorn]

...Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

Actually it will simply be left out of the new American Constitution when we rewrite the document after the Conservative Revolution.

And you think even a simple majority will vote in favor of not having a right to vote? Good luck with that.

No I don't think people will agree to what is good and right.

I think it is wrong to allow people who do not contribute, or who directly benefit from the government to have a vote on things that will destroy the entire country.

We saw this is Greece. Greece was not a fluke. People had been warning that the entitlements and government programs of Greece was absolutely unsustainable. But because so many people benefited from pillaging the nation, every time the people who knew what was going on, tried reform the system to avoid eventual destruction of the country.... the public voted heavily against it.

Well, all the number crunchers were dead on right, and the entire public living off the government, found out they were wrong.

Same is true of Venezuela. Everyone predicted everything that happened in Venezuela, including people in Venezuela. But the people with the least invested in the country, voted to destroy those who had the most invested in the country.

Right now in the US, we know for a fact that Medicare and Social Security will clearly eventually destroy the country.

It's not really up for debate except by those who ignore basic math, just like the people in Greece ignored math, and the people in Venezuela ignored math.

The same group of people who destroyed those countries, is now in the process of destroying our country.

There is a huge danger in giving people who have nothing to lose, or people who live off the largess of the government, access to how the entire country is run.

The irony of this, is that in any other context, everyone, including yourself and every left-winger in the country, would instinctively understand this concept.

For example, if the CEO, or the entire executive board of Boeing, was on the committee that approved government contracts.... we would all understand that there is a huge conflict of interest, between the interest of the entire country, and the interest of the person collecting government money.

But what is the difference between that situation, and someone voting on whoever will continue to give them money at home? Nothing. It's the same conflict of interest between what is best for the entire country, and the interest of the individual living off the government.

So back to the main point... I would agree with you that the public will never vote to limit who can vote. I agree.

But I would still say that it is obvious that they should.

The biggest problem with Social Security is that the federal gov't "borrowed" money from it, with no intention of every paying it back.

 

[Toro]

...Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

Actually it will simply be left out of the new American Constitution when we rewrite the document after the Conservative Revolution.

And you think even a simple majority will vote in favor of not having a right to vote? Good luck with that.

No I don't think people will agree to what is good and right.

I think it is wrong to allow people who do not contribute, or who directly benefit from the government to have a vote on things that will destroy the entire country.

We saw this is Greece. Greece was not a fluke. People had been warning that the entitlements and government programs of Greece was absolutely unsustainable. But because so many people benefited from pillaging the nation, every time the people who knew what was going on, tried reform the system to avoid eventual destruction of the country.... the public voted heavily against it.

Well, all the number crunchers were dead on right, and the entire public living off the government, found out they were wrong.

Same is true of Venezuela. Everyone predicted everything that happened in Venezuela, including people in Venezuela. But the people with the least invested in the country, voted to destroy those who had the most invested in the country.

Right now in the US, we know for a fact that Medicare and Social Security will clearly eventually destroy the country.

It's not really up for debate except by those who ignore basic math, just like the people in Greece ignored math, and the people in Venezuela ignored math.

The same group of people who destroyed those countries, is now in the process of destroying our country.

There is a huge danger in giving people who have nothing to lose, or people who live off the largess of the government, access to how the entire country is run.

The irony of this, is that in any other context, everyone, including yourself and every left-winger in the country, would instinctively understand this concept.

For example, if the CEO, or the entire executive board of Boeing, was on the committee that approved government contracts.... we would all understand that there is a huge conflict of interest, between the interest of the entire country, and the interest of the person collecting government money.

But what is the difference between that situation, and someone voting on whoever will continue to give them money at home? Nothing. It's the same conflict of interest between what is best for the entire country, and the interest of the individual living off the government.

So back to the main point... I would agree with you that the public will never vote to limit who can vote. I agree.

But I would still say that it is obvious that they should.

The biggest problem with Social Security is that the federal gov't "borrowed" money from it, with no intention of every paying it back.

That's not correct.

The government doesn't "borrow" from the fund as you would understand it. Instead, SS is structured like a fund that invests in government bonds, except rather than issue bonds, the government credits and debits the trusts based on actuarial liability estimates and cashflow

 

[Andylusion]

...Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

Actually it will simply be left out of the new American Constitution when we rewrite the document after the Conservative Revolution.

And you think even a simple majority will vote in favor of not having a right to vote? Good luck with that.

No I don't think people will agree to what is good and right.

I think it is wrong to allow people who do not contribute, or who directly benefit from the government to have a vote on things that will destroy the entire country.

We saw this is Greece. Greece was not a fluke. People had been warning that the entitlements and government programs of Greece was absolutely unsustainable. But because so many people benefited from pillaging the nation, every time the people who knew what was going on, tried reform the system to avoid eventual destruction of the country.... the public voted heavily against it.

Well, all the number crunchers were dead on right, and the entire public living off the government, found out they were wrong.

Same is true of Venezuela. Everyone predicted everything that happened in Venezuela, including people in Venezuela. But the people with the least invested in the country, voted to destroy those who had the most invested in the country.

Right now in the US, we know for a fact that Medicare and Social Security will clearly eventually destroy the country.

It's not really up for debate except by those who ignore basic math, just like the people in Greece ignored math, and the people in Venezuela ignored math.

The same group of people who destroyed those countries, is now in the process of destroying our country.

There is a huge danger in giving people who have nothing to lose, or people who live off the largess of the government, access to how the entire country is run.

The irony of this, is that in any other context, everyone, including yourself and every left-winger in the country, would instinctively understand this concept.

For example, if the CEO, or the entire executive board of Boeing, was on the committee that approved government contracts.... we would all understand that there is a huge conflict of interest, between the interest of the entire country, and the interest of the person collecting government money.

But what is the difference between that situation, and someone voting on whoever will continue to give them money at home? Nothing. It's the same conflict of interest between what is best for the entire country, and the interest of the individual living off the government.

So back to the main point... I would agree with you that the public will never vote to limit who can vote. I agree.

But I would still say that it is obvious that they should.

The biggest problem with Social Security is that the federal gov't "borrowed" money from it, with no intention of every paying it back.

That's how socialism works. That's how Social Security worked since it was created. The very first day it was in operation, in 1937... the money collected from the social security income tax, went to the Federal Government income revenues like any other tax. And it was spent.

There was never a time.... never any time in all US history, where the money went anywhere else except the Federal Government, and was spent. That's how the system works.

Social Security is simply a name we give to an income tax, and a welfare benefit. In fact, the government itself argued this in the US supreme court. Because there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal Government running a retirement plan, or a insurance plan.... so it was deemed unconstitutional.

The government argued in court, that it was not running an insurance or a retirement program, and that Social Security was nothing more than an income tax (largely on the poor), and a welfare benefit. And they made that case, based on the fact that taxes from the "social security tax" are collected by the same IRS, and processed the same as any other income tax.... which it is.... And social security benefits are paid out of government money, like any other benefit.

The Federal Government didn't 'borrow' anything. Social Security is a tax, like any other tax. And Social Security benefits, are a welfare benefit, no different than any other benefit.

You can go look up the Supreme court case if you doubt it.

 

[Andylusion]

...Besides, you keep ignoring that taking the vote away from women requires a constitutional amendment.

The president can't just order it done.

Actually it will simply be left out of the new American Constitution when we rewrite the document after the Conservative Revolution.

And you think even a simple majority will vote in favor of not having a right to vote? Good luck with that.

No I don't think people will agree to what is good and right.

I think it is wrong to allow people who do not contribute, or who directly benefit from the government to have a vote on things that will destroy the entire country.

We saw this is Greece. Greece was not a fluke. People had been warning that the entitlements and government programs of Greece was absolutely unsustainable. But because so many people benefited from pillaging the nation, every time the people who knew what was going on, tried reform the system to avoid eventual destruction of the country.... the public voted heavily against it.

Well, all the number crunchers were dead on right, and the entire public living off the government, found out they were wrong.

Same is true of Venezuela. Everyone predicted everything that happened in Venezuela, including people in Venezuela. But the people with the least invested in the country, voted to destroy those who had the most invested in the country.

Right now in the US, we know for a fact that Medicare and Social Security will clearly eventually destroy the country.

It's not really up for debate except by those who ignore basic math, just like the people in Greece ignored math, and the people in Venezuela ignored math.

The same group of people who destroyed those countries, is now in the process of destroying our country.

There is a huge danger in giving people who have nothing to lose, or people who live off the largess of the government, access to how the entire country is run.

The irony of this, is that in any other context, everyone, including yourself and every left-winger in the country, would instinctively understand this concept.

For example, if the CEO, or the entire executive board of Boeing, was on the committee that approved government contracts.... we would all understand that there is a huge conflict of interest, between the interest of the entire country, and the interest of the person collecting government money.

But what is the difference between that situation, and someone voting on whoever will continue to give them money at home? Nothing. It's the same conflict of interest between what is best for the entire country, and the interest of the individual living off the government.

So back to the main point... I would agree with you that the public will never vote to limit who can vote. I agree.

But I would still say that it is obvious that they should.

The biggest problem with Social Security is that the federal gov't "borrowed" money from it, with no intention of every paying it back.

That's not correct.

The government doesn't "borrow" from the fund as you would understand it. Instead, SS is structured like a fund that invests in government bonds, except rather than issue bonds, the government credits and debits the trusts based on actuarial liability estimates and cashflow

Even that, isn't even true.

The Social Security "trust fund" does not invest in government bonds. Meaning, it does not take surplus money, and buy bonds with it. Namely because it never has the surplus money at any point in time. The money is collected by the IRS, and is spent by the government, like any other money.

So the SS Fund never sends over purchases requests for bonds to the Treasury. It never happens.

Instead they simply have created fake bonds. Bonds that are not even real. You can't sell them. They have no value. They are just words on paper, that says the government owes a bunch of money.

When Obama and the Republicans were fighting over the debt ceiling.... Obama said that if we didn't increase borrowing, that Social Security checks would be cut.

Why didn't the Social Security Trustees just say "Well, we're going to sell off a bunch of the bonds we have, and keep paying benefits"?

And the reason they didn't say that, is because none of their fake bonds, can be sold. They have no market value.

There is no trust fund. Never was. Never will be.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Neither is dressing like a man demanding to be treated like a man.. I oBlige

How someone dresses is not justification for violence. Neither is demanding equality.

But you keep "obliging". Some brother, father, or male friend will, hopefully, educate you. Or the justice system will.

Or a woman with a CCW and a Browning Hi-Power.

My girl has a S&W .357 and a CCW. First shot is .38 Special ratshot. If the rat falls down and doesn't threaten her further, he will avoid the next 5 rounds of .357 magnum MagSafe ammo. She is a helluva shot too.

Pipsqueak round...someone dusted or even drunk might not NOTICE a 38 Special unless it hits his eyesocket. Need something with lots more steam on it than that...a hot .357 Magnum or max-pressure 9mm on the LOW end of the spectrum here.

Being peppered by a ratshot round will make them at least pause. The next 5 rounds of full power .357 will do the trick.

If someone is on PCP, they will not NOTICE rat shot. Five .357 Magnum rounds are marginal for someone on Angel Dust. Need more steam.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Being peppered by a ratshot round will make them at least pause. The next 5 rounds of full power .357 will do the trick.

In Boston we just stick a fucking stick of dynamite in your car

And kill innocent bystanders while you run away and don't have to face your enemy?

How brave.

Are there bystanders in front of your house?

There are neighbors, and people walking on the sidewalks. It is a nice older neighborhood.

My dogs will let me know if someone messes with one of the cars during the night. During the day the neighbors watch out for one another.

But it is still a cowards method of assassination.

You obviously know nothing about Boston mobsters your neighbors will not know anything about dynamite on your car

You are a blithering idiot.

 

[Jitss617]

In Boston we just stick a fucking stick of dynamite in your car

And kill innocent bystanders while you run away and don't have to face your enemy?

How brave.

Are there bystanders in front of your house?

There are neighbors, and people walking on the sidewalks. It is a nice older neighborhood.

My dogs will let me know if someone messes with one of the cars during the night. During the day the neighbors watch out for one another.

But it is still a cowards method of assassination.

You obviously know nothing about Boston mobsters your neighbors will not know anything about dynamite on your car

You are a blithering idiot.

Oh my so
Angry lol

 

[WinterBorn]

How someone dresses is not justification for violence. Neither is demanding equality.

But you keep "obliging". Some brother, father, or male friend will, hopefully, educate you. Or the justice system will.

Or a woman with a CCW and a Browning Hi-Power.

My girl has a S&W .357 and a CCW. First shot is .38 Special ratshot. If the rat falls down and doesn't threaten her further, he will avoid the next 5 rounds of .357 magnum MagSafe ammo. She is a helluva shot too.

Pipsqueak round...someone dusted or even drunk might not NOTICE a 38 Special unless it hits his eyesocket. Need something with lots more steam on it than that...a hot .357 Magnum or max-pressure 9mm on the LOW end of the spectrum here.

Being peppered by a ratshot round will make them at least pause. The next 5 rounds of full power .357 will do the trick.

If someone is on PCP, they will not NOTICE rat shot. Five .357 Magnum rounds are marginal for someone on Angel Dust. Need more steam.

Shoot them 5 times with .357 full power loads and then run 50 feet. They will bleed out trying to go that far.

 

[WinterBorn]

In Boston we just stick a fucking stick of dynamite in your car

And kill innocent bystanders while you run away and don't have to face your enemy?

How brave.

Are there bystanders in front of your house?

There are neighbors, and people walking on the sidewalks. It is a nice older neighborhood.

My dogs will let me know if someone messes with one of the cars during the night. During the day the neighbors watch out for one another.

But it is still a cowards method of assassination.

You obviously know nothing about Boston mobsters your neighbors will not know anything about dynamite on your car

You are a blithering idiot.

"What is very obvious? Alex"

 

[Jitss617]

Or a woman with a CCW and a Browning Hi-Power.

My girl has a S&W .357 and a CCW. First shot is .38 Special ratshot. If the rat falls down and doesn't threaten her further, he will avoid the next 5 rounds of .357 magnum MagSafe ammo. She is a helluva shot too.

Pipsqueak round...someone dusted or even drunk might not NOTICE a 38 Special unless it hits his eyesocket. Need something with lots more steam on it than that...a hot .357 Magnum or max-pressure 9mm on the LOW end of the spectrum here.

Being peppered by a ratshot round will make them at least pause. The next 5 rounds of full power .357 will do the trick.

If someone is on PCP, they will not NOTICE rat shot. Five .357 Magnum rounds are marginal for someone on Angel Dust. Need more steam.

Shoot them 5 times with .357 full power loads and then run 50 feet. They will bleed out trying to go that far.

I could hit your skull from 100 yard with a 9.9

 

[Jarlaxle]

And kill innocent bystanders while you run away and don't have to face your enemy?

How brave.

Are there bystanders in front of your house?

There are neighbors, and people walking on the sidewalks. It is a nice older neighborhood.

My dogs will let me know if someone messes with one of the cars during the night. During the day the neighbors watch out for one another.

But it is still a cowards method of assassination.

You obviously know nothing about Boston mobsters your neighbors will not know anything about dynamite on your car

You are a blithering idiot.

Oh my so
Angry lol

Angry? Boy, I am POINTING AND LAUGHING AT YOU. You're the crazy fuck running around with a pair of Depends on your head, squeaking, "THE WORLD IS ENDING!" You are the 8lb Chihuahua yapping at everyone walking by.

 

[Jitss617]

Are there bystanders in front of your house?

There are neighbors, and people walking on the sidewalks. It is a nice older neighborhood.

My dogs will let me know if someone messes with one of the cars during the night. During the day the neighbors watch out for one another.

But it is still a cowards method of assassination.

You obviously know nothing about Boston mobsters your neighbors will not know anything about dynamite on your car

You are a blithering idiot.

Oh my so
Angry lol

Angry? Boy, I am POINTING AND LAUGHING AT YOU. You're the crazy fuck running around with a pair of Depends on your head, squeaking, "THE WORLD IS ENDING!" You are the 8lb Chihuahua yapping at everyone walking by.

You must be projecting more ways then one