It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Only above average IQ people should vote????

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok

Bold statement. I'd like to hear why the war was unjustified since I'm an 'un' myself as in - undecided.

That's a rather simple answer.

Bush based the justification of invading Iraq on the "fact" that Saddam Hussein was hoarding weapons of mass destruction in violation of years of UN sanctions. Despite there being other valid reasons, THIS is the reason he gave to the international community for the action.

Upon discovering NO weapons of mass destruction, it then made the claims of justification completely false, thus making it an "unjustified" war.


Look, I was all for going into Iraq, even knowing full well what the ulterior motives were. I wasn't happy with the WAY he went about it or the rush that he seemed to be in, but I was confident that at least if they didn't find any WMDs, that they'd at least have the common sense to "manufacture" some finds...or at least try harder to get our allies more on board before rushing into it.

So it was wrongly justified, but was it unjustified? I'm with you. Here's me watchin' da tv with Mr. Pres on the screen saying there are WMD's and terrorist harbourings in Iraq: "He better be right". I expected the 'stuff to go down' when he was wrong but here's the thing: hardly anyone flinched. He was not impeached, brought before the U.N. to answer war crimes nor demonstrated a convincing argument for the formation of the International Court (that puppy has been on the table a loooong time just waiting for a nation's leader to make a bad move and get approved). In fact, the U.N. (representing a boat-load of nations) did exactly what they did for the last twenty years about the situation: nothing. Now I'm all for the concept of the U.N., but when it come to delivering, they don't seem to have the functionality to trade oil for food without scandal. Enron, U.S., U.N., they're all supposed to be trusted yet everyone says they hate them. Given the same position, who amoung us 'above' them? They're organizations of people like us. Most with good intentions, some not. In my mind, it would be foolhearty in my mind to put faith in mankind for these reason. "In God we trust".

Questions on the war: Were the people's rights being violated according to Amnesty Interational? Were terrorists ducking in for tea while things were going peachy? Do we honestly feel our men and women went out there to fight for nothing?

Just thoughts I'm pitching out there. Feel free to answer any or all.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 02:32 PM

Originally posted by poonchang
I don't think Bush is an idiot, but sometimes he comes off as one.
Check out my sig!

Hehe, agreed. He does need to work on the image a bit. Around work peeps say "perception is reality"....which I think is total bunk.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:17 PM
Here is something I found from the wikipedia...but it isn't the link that I still looking for it.

The Raëlians promote a new form of government that they refer to as geniocracy, or rule by geniuses. It advocates a requirement of having at least 50% more than the average intelligence potential (though not IQ) as based on a test in order to run for office, and at least 10% above average in order to vote. Thus, even though electorally structured as a democracy, such a regime would be a representative oligarchy.

I have to look up 'oligarchy'...not familiar with it....oli meaning scant amount, like "oliguria" which means decrease urinary output....hummm.

posted on 1/20/2005 at 08:07 Post Number: 1104136 (post id: 1126029) quote

Here is more on the topic of having geniocracy...this is scary stuff, I think

The Raelians advocate a political system that only allows the most intelligent people to govern. Writes Rael, "What kind of people allow humanity to progress? The geniuses. Therefore your world must appreciate its geniuses and allow them to govern the Earth...(1986:85) We are talking about placing the genius in power, and you may call that geniocracy(87)." The Eloha explains that in a system of geniocracy, only individuals with an intellect 10 percent above average should be allowed to vote, while an intellectual capacity of at least 50 percent above average would be required to be eligible to hold a governing position.

Thanks to Rant for getting this original thread up and running and moved to the proper place.

Anymore thougths on this topic?

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Cherish
I wish that I could agree with you on bush not being a dimwit...but I can't!

Looks like more people here are not for Bush.

I could easily debate you on this and win!

As for the fact, of higher IQ people should vote, I do not agree. An IQ does not necessarily describe your political smartness.

Bush IS smart. Seeing he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If he's dimwit then what does that make us?

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 07:55 PM
Well, here it is: president of the United States is not a president of Mensa or wisemen club, so enough telling how somebody got to be smart to be a president, it can help, maybe can't.
But, solving mathematical problem isn't thing needed from the president. That is needed for mathematician, I guess.
But simply if 98% of people have not IQ over 150, then those 98% do affect the vote count alot. But talking about discipline, I am sure great many inteligent people just don't vote. So answer is a bit more simple, people of inferior inteligence really pull the car in whichever direction they want of the road, not necesarily in good one.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn

Originally posted by Cherish
I wish that I could agree with you on bush not being a dimwit...but I can't!

Looks like more people here are not for Bush.

I could easily debate you on this and win!

Debate what? Bush's "C' average at yale...he probably got into yale the same way that he got into the national one of america's fortunate sons...a "priviledged individual" born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

You don't have to be smart to be elected...or selected...just priviledged.

It is the IQ of the voters that is in question.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:13 PM
I think exclusion is against everything most ats posters support !!!!

An Intelligence Quotient indicates a person's mental abilities relative to others of approximately the same age

and the bush family would just rig the testing process....just kidding...kinda....

while we're at it, women shouldn't vote, minorities shouldn't vote, heck, only white men who own land should vote.....

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:54 PM

Are these people saying that average intelligent people aren't able to make wise decisions?

These people has obviously lost a couple of screws upstairs and shouldn't be allowed to cast a vote for anything!

Comments such as this is the most likely reason that these people will never be taken seriously!

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:17 PM
I think people who are educated enough on law systems and politicans, and how washington works show vote. No more intellectual discrimination! We're already discriminated against, dude!

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Comments such as this is the most likely reason that these people will never be taken seriously!

I agree with your statement. Seems a bit elite(ist) to me.

As for fair testing...everything would be rigged...there are many who think that everything already is!

I don't dislike the Raelians at all. They have some interestings things to say. I believe that GOD created DNA and that it is very important for us to understand DNA...and everything that it can do for us as a race...but this part about IQ voting...seems like going back in time socially.

Hey, only green eyes ppl with can vote and so on. Seems like it would be a violation of a civil liberty.

All men are created equal.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:05 PM
This is a terrible idea. The best filter for voters is process. A person should be motivated enough to register, without motor voter laws, etc, produce a valid ID, and be able to understand the ballot. IQ is a valuable, but slippery concept. Democracy is for the common man.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Cherish
Only above average IQ people should vote????

What is everyones thought on that? Please keep an open mind here.

I read on the Raelian page ( they think that only people of above average intelligence should elect the government.

Just curious what other think about it.

Hey Cherish,
I went to that Raelian site and couldn't find their reason WHY only people with above average IQ should be able to vote.

Could you enlighten us?


posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:40 PM
I posted 2 links earlier....have to changr pc's after i eat dinner...will post more then.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:04 PM
yeah my IQ is over 135, and again, like that other guy said, it is due to pattern recognitions. I'm not going to say that a 13-16 year old is better at reading or writting than i am, but i will say that i'm not the best at those for someone my age, mainly speed reading or not proof reading what i write, which i never do. An IQ test would be favorable to men as well because men tend to see visual things better than women, and that is basically all the IQ test is. In theory it is a spectacular idea, but in reality there are a lot of major flaws within it. And aside from that, the same person/party would be reelected year after year.

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:05 PM
So, the reason that the Raelians want an IQ prerequisite is that geniuses are the "kind of people [that] allow humanity to progress"? I just don't get it.

Sorry I missed your links. I got bored reading the pro/anti-Bush stuff and just skimmed over them.

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:08 AM
IQ tests are full of crap anyway...i've taken one that said i was a 90 and then had one say i was 160...i don't think they're terribly accurate

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:17 AM
Well marg if your opinion is that bush is an idiot thats one thing however I don't see anywhere in your statement where you said its your opinion, you stated that bush is an idiot. can you see the difference?
As for you being a lberal that is based on the sum of those posts of your whch I have seen in which you consitintly espouse liberal positions.
My opinion marge is that you are an embittered liberal who wants to blame all the worlds ills on Bush because it makes you feel superior. My opinion is That you attack Bush intelect because you don't have the abillity to argue against his positions. My opinion is that you attack him on this board because you know that he is to busy to come here and defend himself and even if he did have time the opinions of a bunch of anonymous people on a conspiracy site wouldn't matter to him. My opinion f you marge is that you are someone who needs someone to blame so yo don't have to take responsibilty for your own failings. those aren't insults by the way just my opinion.

Gazrok - In terms of the Invasion of Iraq I look at it in the same way a review bnoard lookjs at officer involved shootings.
We had a large amount of intelligence that not onlyt did Hussein have WMD but that he had the abillity to deploy them very quickly. Now this intellgence and the assesment of his capabilities was agreed upon by All of the major european governments including france germany and the UK. Further more we had reason to believe that hussein had ties to Al quedaand he did he just could not be tied to the 9/11 attacks.
So we have a stuation where a known hostile is believed based on evidence from defectores to have weapons of mass destruction and history which shows his willngness to use them.
Lets say a police officer is approachng a felon who is known to carry a gun, while the offcer is approachng the suspect has his hand in his pocket, which contains a noticible bulge which is similar in shape to a gun and is threatening the officer, now if that suspect makes a quick move to pull his hand out of his pocket we can agree I think that the officer based on his training would be folowing procedure to shoot the suspect. Even if afterwards it turns out all he had in his pocket was a butterfinger, a review board would still find that the officer in queston had enough reason to belive the suspect was in possesion of a weapon to make the shooting justified.
It is the same situaton here IMHO, while Bush may have been wrong about WMD's (and I am still not convinced as ther is evidence the weapons may have been moved to syria) there was enough evidence to that he did to pint a false picture.
I actually think saddam brought this on Iraq as it was in hs interests to want the world t think he did have WMD's. Some of his own generals were under the impression he did. Now if the officers of his own military were fooled can we really attribute malice to Bush believing he did?

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:36 AM
This is a thread about a statement that I have read that the Raelians have a political belief the only people of above average IQ should be allowed to run for office and to vote.

It is in no way a policy that I am indorsing...I merely wanted to get feedback from others what was thought of a policy like this.

Marge's opinion is just as valued as the one before this one. I think that post was a bit on the hostile side...and am wondering what flaming is?

I have recieved a u2u from someone requesting a link for bush's grades at yale. There are many on google search but here is one:

>- Peace, People,Peace! @];-

[edit on 1/21/2005 by Cherish]

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:40 AM

Originally posted by radagast
I think exclusion is against everything most ats posters support !!!!

I agree...myself included. I am merely looking for peoples thoughts on this topic.

The reactions have been very interesting!

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 04:36 AM
The Raellians say that geniuses allow humans to progress, how about the dumbass that took the fall for the ReichsTag Burning ? without him we might not have had WW2 , the Manhattan Project and cable TV ?

[edit on 21-1-2005 by Countermeasures]

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in