Why Liberalism is a mental disease

[wehrmacht]

Ted Kaczynski, who was a genius math professor before he started blowing people up, explains how modern liberalism and leftism is more of a psychological illness than an ideology:

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative," "enterprise," "optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for them, satisfy everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

18. The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it (collectivism). Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power.

[Rilkean]

hey bro, tl;dr

[Potus]

tl;dr

If you hate liberals you should leave the United States since it's founded on liberalism.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

You are a bad person.

[naez]

politics are great and all except most people who think they know something don't even know what planet they're on


simple things like private banks print the money and enslave everyone

simple things like Clinton is a transnational agent

[wehrmacht]

tl;dr

If you hate liberals you should leave the United States since it's founded on liberalism.

Edited original post down in size and large words. American Idol fans will now find it legible.

You already know as well as I do that modern day liberalism/leftism have nothing to do with the word "Libertarianism" except they all start with the letter L. Libertarianism is individualistic and all the other L words that you love so much are collectivism. I hope this guy isn't really a school teacher as he claimed.

[Bodeanicus]

politics are great and all except most people who think they know something don't even know what planet they're on


simple things like private banks print the money and enslave everyone

simple things like Clinton is a transnational agent

Yeah, we could talk about important shit, like basketball. Nothing more important watching grown men make millions playing a child's game.

[Potus]

You already know as well as I do that modern day liberalism/leftism have nothing to do with the word "Libertarianism" except they all start with the letter L.

America wasn't founded on Libertarianism and you said Liberalism.

Do big words not make sense to you? Perhaps I could find a picture book on the founding fathers.

[Rilkean]

Yeah, we could talk about important shit, like basketball. Nothing more important watching grown men make millions playing a child's game.

So tired of the liberal chocolate NBA, man.....

[naez]

Sports were child's play until the early 1900's. It was engineered by the elite so basic human tribalism would be directed towards sports instead of politics.

[Rilkean]

Heyyoooo Chomsky enters thread

[naez]

Classical liberalism as that of the founding fathers is nothing like the mental disorder that modern day "liberals" suffer from.

[Potus]

Classical liberalism as that of the founding fathers is nothing like the mental disorder that modern day "liberals" suffer from.

Oh sweet, a fellow scholar. Nothing like the modern day liberals eh?

Agrarian Justice is the title of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine, published in 1797, which advocated the use of an estate tax and a tax on land values to fund a universal old-age and disability pension, as well as a fixed sum to be paid to all citizens on reaching maturity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

HOLY SHIT, is that Social Security, championed by founding father Thomas Paine? MY GOODNESS, THAT SOUNDS LIKE MODERN DAY MENTAL DISORDER LIBERALISM TO ME.

Yeah, you can leave the thread now, your ass just got handed to you. Out *points*

[wehrmacht]

America wasn't founded on Libertarianism and you said Liberalism.


Everything that you refer to as a "liberal" or "liberalism" today, was called a collectivist or socialist back then.



HOLY SHIT, is that Social Security, championed by founding father Thomas Paine? MY GOODNESS, THAT SOUNDS LIKE MODERN DAY MENTAL DISORDER LIBERALISM TO ME.


What a joke, you pretend like every founding father was in unanimous agreement with each other. You also failed to address anything in the original post and try to shift into some history and linguistics semantics.

[naez]

Get your trash about social security out of this thread Potus. I was talking about classical liberalism vs the cancer of liberalism. You really do have a mental disorder.

[Potus]

Everything that you refer to as a "liberal" or "liberalism" today, was called a collectivist or socialist back then.


"Socialism" wasn't invented yet. Wouldn't be invented for another forty years. See, these are the things us Ivory Tower guys do, read books with facts in them. So wrong.

You can leave too. Out.

[Potus]

Get your trash out of this thread Potus. You really do have a mental disorder.

Pretty sure I told you to leave the thread. Do you want to get another asskicking. You're about to lose your Gnecro pass.

[Potus]

Who else wants to fuck with Potus, who else.

I'm flexing so hard right now that Wehrmacht is getting horny.

[Rilkean]

Pretty sure I told you to leave the thread. Do you want to get another asskicking. You're about to lose your Gnecro pass.

You missed the cool part where he called social security a ponzi scheme

[naez]

"Socialism" wasn't invented yet.

Robert Owen and others would like to have a word with you.

*out*

[wehrmacht]

"Socialism" wasn't invented yet. Wouldn't be invented for another forty years. See, these are the things us Ivory Tower guys do, read books with facts in them. So wrong.

Nobody cares about the exact date whatever term you want to use to describe it was "trademarked". It's always existed since human beings first walked the earth. It's the common method of operation of the family structure in general. It just doesn't work for anything else since a nation of 300 million completely different people doesn't qualify as a family.

Since you failed to debunk a single thing from the original post. I guess you forfeit this thread and are now just attempting to "troll".

[naez]

You missed the cool part where he called social security a ponzi scheme

of course it is, like everything else the hair-brained liberals think of to steal from the white man and give to minorities

[Potus]

Robert Owen and others would like to have a word with you.

*out*

Didn't write anything socialist until 1817,

1817-1776 = 41 years

Stop. Posting. You. Are. Looking. Bad.

[Rilkean]

Nobody cares about

a single thing from the original post.

[purist]

Your entire trolling persona seems to be based on annoying some super politically correct private college humanities grad student. I guess this is the kind of people you've chosen to constantly hang around IRL, whereas I’ve chosen just to ignore such people when I come across them in reality.

[Potus]

Since you failed to debunk a single thing from the original post. I guess you forfeit this thread and are now just attempting to "troll".

I debunked Liberalism being a mental disorder since it founded the country of your birth.

Pretty sure I took a giant sideways shit in your thread. Open your mouth, here comes something big and brown in your mouth, your black boyfriend is jealous.

[wehrmacht]

Next Potus is going to try and claim someone invented the Photon. All of these structures have existed before the printing press was even invented. He's sitting here whining about dumb little semantic dates that people tried to trademark a word to describe it because he's completely unable to debunk anything from the original post.

[Rilkean]

Nobody cares about

a single thing from the original post.

[wehrmacht]

Anyone notice that Potus and Rilkean both always come into threads at the exact same time? She called another nutcase leftist in to try and defend her after she was losing too bad. Don't even try to claim you don't know each other.

[naez]

Wouldn't be invented for another forty years. See, these are the things us Ivory Tower guys do, read books with facts in them. So wrong.

Simple things like Manuel Noriega tried in an American court as the head of a sovereign country when he should have had diplomatic immunity, proving no one is safe from the vast encroaching NWO.

Potus don't let the sickness elites have had throughout history in their Ivory Towers get to your pea brained liberal head just yet, you're just a pawn in this game like everyone else.

[Potus]

Next Potus is going to try and claim someone invented the Photon. All of these structures have existed before the printing press was even invented.

No but you see, someone discovered the Photon and called it a Photon. Before that, no one would have called something a Photon, the same way no one would have called Thomas Paine a Socialist before the idea had even been published and the term "Socialist" coined.

You should watch Back to the Future, it's got very few black people in it and it explains the whole "TIME" thing. It's very simple, I'm sure you'll grasp it after repeated viewings.

[Rilkean]

I do not know Potus, but I think we are scholarly soulmates.

[wehrmacht]

No but you see, someone discovered the Photon and called it a Photon. Before that, no one would have called something a Photon

And your semantics have nothing to do with the original post. Any non-biased person reading this thread can tell what you're trying to do, shift the discusion away from something you're uncomfortable with because it terrifies you.

The original post describes a psychology type prevalent among people referring to themselves as "liberals". The date someone coined any of these terms has 0 relevance to anything in the thread.

[naez]

We call those red herrings

[bman8810]

The entire purpose of language is to convey our points. As such, the term "socialism" is not necessarily important. However, the ideals that would later come to define that term are important.

Just food for thought.

I personally know very little about our founding fathers, as a Chemical Engineer I have had to take very few history classes ;).

[Rilkean]

Nobody cares about

a single thing from the original post.

[Potus]

Pretty sure I answered your original post by showing how Liberalism created the United States. If you can't handle your original post getting shot down that bad then I suggest you delete your thread.

[bman8810]

"Why liberalism is a mental disease"

"Liberalism created the United States"

Clearly everyone is communicating on a different level ;)

[Potus]

"Why liberalism is a mental disease"

"Liberalism created the United States"

Clearly everyone is communicating on a different level ;)

Why does Wehrmacht hate America?

[Potus]

These colors don't run, Wehrmacht. America: Love it or Leave it

[naez]

You people don't understand, the founding fathers were members of the secret societies. America created the United Nations. America founded the world bank. America is behind every global planning agency of the NWO. There's nothing to celebrate about.

[Potus]

http://i.imgur.com/efbTI.jpg

Fucking America. >=(

[wehrmacht]

Pretty sure I answered your original post by showing how Liberalism created the United States. If you can't handle your original post getting shot down that bad then I suggest you delete your thread.

More bogus attempts to try to shift argument to semantics instead of addressing anything in original post. It doesn't matter if America ever existed or not. The original post has nothing to do with America.

Original post is about the psychological condition affecting people that refer to themselves as liberals.

[Potus]

More bogus attempts to try to shift argument to semantics instead of addressing anything in original post. It doesn't matter if America ever existed or not. The original post has nothing to do with America.

Original post is about the psychological condition affecting people that refer to themselves as liberals.

Excuse me, the title of your post is "Why Liberalism is a mental disease". Clearly you need to stay on topic or else you're trolling the thread.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

LOL @ wehrmacht's ludicrous equivocations itt.

[wehrmacht]

Excuse me, the title of your post is "Why Liberalism is a mental disease". Clearly you need to stay on topic or else you're trolling the thread.

Read the first sentence from the post:

"Ted Kaczynski, who was a genius math professor before he started blowing people up, explains how modern liberalism and leftism is more of a psychological illness than an ideology:"

It says "modern liberalism and leftism". It doesn't say 300 years ago. The topic of the thread was present day no matter how you want to try and spin it.

Since you read nothing from the original post and just spammed jibberish, that explains why your posts look like that.

[Potus]

Title of the thread is Why Liberalism is a mental disease.

Reading comprehension is something you learn in grade school, you should try graduating it.

Why would you make a thread about Liberalism and then post incoherent rants from a murderer about modern liberalism? Clearly you're trolling your own thread.:eek:

[Toehammer]

No but you see, someone discovered the Photon and called it a Photon. Before that, no one would have called something a Photon, the same way no one would have called Thomas Paine a Socialist before the idea had even been published and the term "Socialist" coined.

You should watch Back to the Future, it's got very few black people in it and it explains the whole "TIME" thing. It's very simple, I'm sure you'll grasp it after repeated viewings.

Also, nobody discovered the photon, it was predicted (Newton got the word out, Fresnel/Huygens owned him) then Planck brought it back full circle predicting light as a particle. In physics, discoveries are made in the lab, but things like the photon, or any other construct of the mind, are not discovered but merely revealed by experiment. Experiment drives construction of a theory, that is why the Stern-Gerlach experiment revealed quantum mechanics' beauty. Only when the experimentalists and theorists have close discourse can progress be made.

This lack of communication and common sense between socialists is astounding. Unfortunately, socialism (a beautiful construct of the mind) has been revealed to fail, experimentally. Thus it only works in the confines of a cranial ivory tower. Interestingly, the socialist's skull is their ivory tower (ivory prison), for they have never ventured into the real world to see that their crackpot theories fail.

You and OP need to stop using something as beautiful as the photon to discuss socialism/(current trend of US liberalism). GTFO! You demean science in doing so.

Also, offhandedly insulting Back to the Future is reprehensible. That movie is fantastic. Only newbs say otherwise.

/trying to derail thread

[Potus]

You and OP need to stop using something as beautiful as the photon to discuss socialism/(current trend of US liberalism). GTFO! You demean science in doing so.

/trying to derail thread

Scientists are part of the liberal ivory tower. And Gilbert Lewis coined the term Photon.

Out as well. *points*

[Toehammer]

Reading comprehension is something you learn in grade school, you should try graduating it.

graduating it? like raising it? was this school you speak of chemistry glassware?

graduated from it... sorry, this just really bothers me, almost as much as when people say cavalry "calvary"

I wouldn't have called you out except you have been snooty in this thread and were bashing someone's reading comprehension on an internet forum, and thus open yourself up.

Done with this thread, I have both graduated it and graduated from it!

[Potus]

graduating it? like raising it? was this school you speak of chemistry glassware?

graduated from it... sorry, this just really bothers me, almost as much as when people say cavalry "calvary"

I wouldn't have called you out except you have been snooty in this thread and were bashing someone's reading comprehension on an internet forum, and thus open yourself up.

Done with this thread, I have both graduated it and graduated from it!

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=graduate

You failed. Again.

[Rilkean]

Physicists are neckbeard elitist losers and science-rejects FYI. All other science branches hate you guys because you are the ones stuck in your shitty ivory domes of asperger tininess.

[Potus]

I'm going to go make a Rube Goldberg machine that will kick Toehammer in the balls the next time he posts.

[Toehammer]

Scientists are part of the liberal ivory tower. And Gilbert Lewis coined the term Photon.

Out as well. *points*

I promised I was done with this thread, but now I am not. I DON'T CARE who coined a fucking term. You obviously study a social or soft science, because you have zero argument/logic skills. Or else you are just inept.

Gilbert Lewis, great man, I love the Lewis dot structure; it's great for a physicist to understand chemical bonding on paper. But seriously, thanks for going to wikipedia as the shaky base of your logic-fail pyramid. Maxwell didn't call his equations "Maxwell's Equations", so does that mean that someone else gets street cred for naming them?

Sure scientists are part of the liberal ivory tower, what is your point? That doesn't mean that they all buy into the bullshit. Nor am I naive to believe all poly sci types are liberals. I am still searching for something of your comment that could resemble a central argument.

How does your foot taste?

You sound like a pansy that flexes your e-muscle by saying, "Out as well. *points*". You lack cajones, too much philosophizing... just remember Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man. - Hume

Potus auctions, "WTB philosophy weiner"

[Potus]

No one would have called something a photon before the term was coined, the same way no one would have called Thomas Paine a socialist before the term was coined.

Rube Goldberg ----> your scrotum

[Toehammer]

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=graduate

You failed. Again.

OMG you stuck your foot so far up your throat now it is funny. How does mid-shin taste? NOTHING in that link shows any sort of grammar fail on my part; it shows that you fail incontrovertibly. Moron. You said in your post "try graduating it"... let's replace your ambiguous use of "it" with the real direct object "school" so now the predicate phrase now reads "try graduating school". Your link has 3 examples:
1) "She graduated in 1990"
2) "This school graduates 2,000 students each year"
3) "graduate a cylinder"

Your sentence would have been correct with a prepositional phrase; "try graduating from it" would have made sense. The fact that example/definition 2 says "school graduates 2,000 students" works because the noun school is graduating, ie performing graduation ceremonies, students from its halls. However to say someone should graduate school makes no sense. You are missing a KEY prepositional phrase. Let me simplify for you with an accurate analogy: you would say, "I learned college" instead of the correct "I learned from college" whereas one can accurately say "College learned me", similar to example 2, but not "College learned from me". Prepositions matched with direct objects are very tricky, and I understand why you made the mistake. I am not condemning you, I just get annoyed when you cast the first grammar stone, and then when I shatter your house of fail, you try to come back and fail harder. People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks. I think in the interest of saving me time, and you face, that we stop this here.

Physicists are neckbeard elitist losers and science-rejects FYI. All other science branches hate you guys because you are the ones stuck in your shitty ivory domes of asperger tininess.

I agree, physicists are elitists to a certain extent. I myself hate the ivory tower physicist, and have had to deal with him/her (actually, rarely are women physicists annoying or super-elitist). I try to keep myself in check not to become one. However, all science branches do not hate us. Physicists are generally sought out for collaboration to help solve complex problems from experimental inception to completion. If other scientists hate us because they had problems with vectors and basic Physics I? Haters gonna hate! Oh well! I think people hate their physics teachers because a lot of physics teachers wholeheartedly believe in sink or swim in introductory physics, which a lot of whiny bitches cannot handle. I myself have seen both sides of the issue, and I think a coddling demeanor should be adopted for some people and not for others. This is why I have always liked schools calculus-based and non-calculus based physics approach.

I successfully steered this thread in the right direction :D

[Toehammer]

No one would have called something a photon before the term was coined, the same way no one would have called Thomas Paine a socialist before the term was coined.

Rube Goldberg ----> your scrotum

Once again, who the fuck cares? They were called corpuscules by Newton. Just because Lewis used Latin to name something (good choice Lewis!) doesn't really have any significance. I was giving both you and Weier(whateverthecraphisnameis) grief because you guys were applying modern-day political science terms for historical political factions that are both distorted by history and your interpretation of what they mean because you grew up in modern times. Seriously, a photon is a photon, although it is more mysteriously beautiful than maybe anything in science, it is known well what someone means when they say photon. However socialist, liberal, republican... this shit changes with time.

You can see I am swearing slightly more as this thread progresses. It is because if you really are in academia (which I get the impression you are) I am sad. It seems you have a poor, narrow education. If you were trained in logic, your grammar would be better. If you were trained in science, you would understand it more. I swear more often because I get more and more depressed about the lack of thought, logic, and science training's value in our modern society. I like to swear at you, because if you are a teacher, you will probably fail a bright student who owns you in class as I have here. If he be a physicist/mathematician/logician, I hope I have not added to your and Rilkean's hatred for us... please be gentle on him.

[Foxx]

. If other scientists hate us because they had problems with vectors and basic Physics I? Haters gonna hate! Oh well! I think people hate their physics teachers because a lot of physics teachers wholeheartedly believe in sink or swim in introductory physics, which a lot of whiny bitches cannot handle. I myself have seen both sides of the issue, and I think a coddling demeanor should be adopted for some people and not for others. This is why I have always liked schools calculus-based and non-calculus based physics approach.

honestly I have never come across a physics professor who is worth his/her salt. Don't get me wrong, I am sure they are brilliant, but have absolutely zero business teaching anybody. I did well in the classes, but they are horrible. This goes for the entire physics department at my school. They are also deffinetly elitist. I had a friend of mine majoring in Physics, and when she went to the department head about trying to dual major in Physics and Mechanical Engineering, they gave her a ton of grief over it and wouldn't let her. After continuing to try and get permission to do this (from above there head, I guess) they dropped her from the program and she just switched to engineering.

I have never had a good experience with a physics department any school I have attended, or heard a good experience from other students at other schools.

All that, I am not taking anything away from there brilliance, like I said before I know they are all very well educated and intelligent people. Nearly all of them have a doctorate in physics, or a similar field, but they all have a huge ego, and several other things I dont like about them, but I guess I shouldn't generalize.

On a side note, most professors I have come across who teach engineering are great people, and the people I have gotten the opportunity to work with in the engineering field are great, and exactly the opposite experience I had with the physics folk.

[wehrmacht]

I promised I was done with this thread, but now I am not. I DON'T CARE who coined a fucking term. You obviously study a social or soft science, because you have zero argument/logic skills. Or else you are just inept.

That's the exact same thing all my posts said to Potus as well. He's unable to address anything in the original post because it appears his entire life is invested in that ideology. He starts to read it and notices the subconscious reason for all of his actions are derived from feelings of inferiority. He has no rational argument against that so tries to drag you into a semantics debate. If that fails, he then tries to drag you into a morality debate to try and claim he is the moral high ground and "you are evil".

Same way with this Rilkean "girl/man/creature". Look what she sent to me earlier:


How many good looking women have been president of the USA? How many senators are good looking women? How many heads of state are good looking women? How many bankers are good looking women? My god. The number 0 keeps coming up.


She see's the nonsense on TV saying everyone on earth is identical and equal, notices women hold less positions of power in society, assumes men are in those positions not because they were qualified for them, but it just has to be some other reason because otherwise she wouldn't be equal.

So now she has an inferiority complex and tries to solve it by attempting to remove those people from their positions regardless of whether they were the most fit for them or not.

This is how all liberal ideology works, it's the beta males, minorities, women, gays, basically everyone with an inferiority complex banding together against the people most fit to hold that spot. You don't have to be inferior if you can just kill the person doing better than you!

The same type of people notice women make up only 11% of engineers. Even though there's nothing from preventing women from choosing that field in college, it couldn't possibly be their sex just has no interest in that field compared to men, otherwise they wouldn't be equal. They have to solve that inferiority complex somehow.

This is where it really gets interesting. Practically everything about psychology is already known. You can easily predict how these angry, little, inferiority complex people will react to any given variable presented to them. Bankers will move in and try to sell full blown socialism and communism as a solution to these people's problems and they love it. Not because it's good, just because it erases the people that give them their inferiority complex. Why would the bankers want this? To centralize all the wealth and power, then they can easily steal everything.

Isn't it awesome how people's pathetic psychological problems are used to destroy them while at the same time thinking they are getting something great?

[Toehammer]

honestly I have never come across a physics professor who is worth his/her salt. Don't get me wrong, I am sure they are brilliant, but have absolutely zero business teaching anybody. I did well in the classes, but they are horrible. This goes for the entire physics department at my school. They are also deffinetly elitist. I had a friend of mine majoring in Physics, and when she went to the department head about trying to dual major in Physics and Mechanical Engineering, they gave her a ton of grief over it and wouldn't let her. After continuing to try and get permission to do this (from above there head, I guess) they dropped her from the program and she just switched to engineering.

I have never had a good experience with a physics department any school I have attended, or heard a good experience from other students at other schools.

All that, I am not taking anything away from there brilliance, like I said before I know they are all very well educated and intelligent people. Nearly all of them have a doctorate in physics, or a similar field, but they all have a huge ego, and several other things I dont like about them, but I guess I shouldn't generalize.

On a side note, most professors I have come across who teach engineering are great people, and the people I have gotten the opportunity to work with in the engineering field are great, and exactly the opposite experience I had with the physics folk.

Great post! I agree, growing up in the physics environment can be extremely disheartening. My PhD adviser was brutally egostistical, and he told me about 6 months into research that "I am the master, you are the slave, I don't like it, but it must be that way". It is one thing that it is universally implied, but explicitly saying it indicates another level of arrogance/elitism. In fact, right after I defended my thesis, he said, "now you can call me by my first name". So trust me, I know EXACTLY what you mean in terms of a shitty physics culture.

I am sad you haven't found a great physics professor. Most of them are awful yes, and physicists have failed the world by not fascinating more young people to become physicists and showing how sexy the subject really is. However, there are diamonds in the rough, you just see the coal in introductory courses. Intro courses are scoffed at, when you get to junior/senior level courses, those shitty profs (some of them) hit their stride like its child's play. I had a stat mech teacher who could not find his way out of a mime's pretend box in physics I, but when I had him for advanced statistical mechanics as a senior, he enlightened us. Extrapolating your diamond analogy, to the untrained eye, diamond's natural state is coal. Most students see the coal part of physics because it is taught by assistant professors trying to get tenure and ignoring their teaching responsibilities, or old degraded diamonds of tenured professors, just fulfilling their required duties. However, teaching takes time to master, and one can harden and sharpen rough pieces of coal and forge diamonds. The trick is finding them.

I actually was contemplating going into geology/geophysics in grad school because physicists (for the most part) are poindexter, know-it-all, elite braggarts. However I love physics too much. I aspire to get a more teaching-oriented physics professorship, so I try to keep perspective on not becoming one of "them" that you speak of. In fact, I quit my major in pure math (which I was much more talented at) because of departmental a**holes in the math department, so I know exactly how your friend felt! It feels like abandonment.

Thanks for adding some good analysis to the thread :)

[Arclyte]

tell me more about physics

[naez]

bush _______ ____ ___ towers

[purist]

bush _______ ____ ___ towers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdr_2IAJWU&t=0m30s

[Japan]

Practically everything about psychology is already known.

:(

[wehrmacht]

:(

As in predicting human behavior (game theory), not neuroscience and where consciousness comes from and how to build technological singularity AI robots and whatever other nonsense you're thinking of. It's pretty easy to predict mob behavior based on what variables you feed them.

[Shrubwise]

Ted Kaczynski, who was a genius math professor before he started blowing people up

/thread

[wehrmacht]

/thread

It's not very uncommon in advanced math professions.

"It is not enough to say he was smart," said George Piranian, another of his Michigan math professors. In fact, Kaczynski earned his Ph.D. with his thesis entitled "Boundary Functions" by solving a problem[14] so difficult that Piranian could not figure it out.[15] Maxwell Reade, a retired math professor who served on Kaczynski's dissertation committee, also commented on his thesis by noting, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."


Hilarious short story where every liberal that has posted in this thread is basically the crew of the ship:

"Ship of Fools" is a short story written by Ted Kaczynski in which various people, representing oppressed groups in American society, squabble about living conditions aboard a ship, in spite of the fact that its course towards the North Pole presents ever-increasing danger. The cabin boy warns of their impending doom and calls for a few of them to charge the poop deck and oust the captains. However, he is dismissed as a violent, unrealistic fascist and ignored. The story concludes abruptly:

They pushed him away and went back to grumbling about wages, and about blankets for women, and about the right to suck cocks, and about how the dog was treated. The ship kept sailing north, and after a while it was crushed between two icebergs and everyone drowned.

[Japan]

well at least somebody agrees with you Wehrmacht

[Potus]

Your sentence would have been correct with a prepositional phrase; "try graduating from it" would have made sense.


"Reading comprehension is something you learn in grade school, you should try graduating it." is grammatically correct. You should stop knocking "soft science" since for you it's clearly a hard science. Haha a pun.

Seriously you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Once again, who the fuck cares?

Already explained it to you. Have you been tested for spergers because words seem to be really difficult for you.

[Potus]

I feel so bad for Wehrmacht, in 2008 you had to choose between voting for a black man or a white woman.

The paranoid bigoted white man, his world crashing down upon him.

[Massive Marc]

The same type of people notice women make up only 11% of engineers. Even though there's nothing from preventing women from choosing that field in college, it couldn't possibly be their sex just has no interest in that field compared to men, otherwise they wouldn't be equal. They have to solve that inferiority complex somehow.



I'm not sure if it's a inferiority complex, but as I get older I notice this type of behavior a lot more. The whole Equal Rights movement fucked everything up..

Everyone IS NOT equal.

[bman8810]

I feel so bad for Wehrmacht, in 2008 you had to choose between voting for a black man or a white woman.

The paranoid bigoted white man, his world crashing down upon him.

Race and/or sex were never a factor for me. I didn't want to vote for Obama solely due to the annoying prObamas that wouldn't start harping about "hope" and "change" as if these were new, novel concepts that he was introducing into the political realm for the first time.

Even more annoying was knowing that they would all start hating on Obama due to him not making everything rainbows and butterflies after a month.

P.S. I voted for Obama, but that was just because I feel that public opinion is a powerful motivator for a country than mediocre policy.

[nalkin]

Just stopping in to say physics is stupid and contrived.

[bman8810]

http://macromeme.com/dog/how-magnets-work.html

If only physics could explain hows tides work... Sadly, it can't. Damn you for revealing this to me Bill O'Reilly! <shake fist>

[Massive Marc]

http://macromeme.com/dog/how-magnets-work.html

If only physics could explain hows tides work... Sadly, it can't. Damn you for revealing this to me Bill O'Reilly! <shake fist>

That interview made me laugh so hard. Bill got owned with ease. The butthurt in his face priceless.

"um... We do know how tides work Bill..."

[bman8810]

Well how did the moon get there?

How'd the sun get there?

Why don't other planets have them?

Explain that to me smart guy.

/facepalm

[mimixownzall]

Classical liberalism as that of the founding fathers is nothing like the mental disorder that modern day "liberals" suffer from.


^^^^

[Potus]

^^^^

Look at these leftists:

It was in the context of this reality that, in July of 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law an act "For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

This Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from the sailor’s pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. This first payroll tax amounted to slightly over 1% of the sailor’s wages. An injured or sick sailor would make a claim, his record of payments would be confirmed, and he would be given a "chit" for admission to the local hospital. Some of these healthcare facilities were private, but in the larger ports Federal maritime hospitals were established. (http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2009/07/22/our_founding_fathers_socialist_healthcare_system)

John Adams, what a socialist, collectivist, leftist that has nothing to do with classical liberalism.

[purist]

rilkean is quickly beating out Harrison in most effortless person to troll tbh

[mimixownzall]

I feel so bad for Wehrmacht, in 2008 you had to choose between voting for a black man or a white woman.

The paranoid bigoted white man, his world crashing down upon him.

Shit.. I'm more black than Obama.

I'm poor.
One of my parents abandoned me early in my childhood.
I have bad credit.
I barely graduated High School.

Obama is:
A Millionaire.
Grew up with both parents.
Has good credit (at least better than mine I'm sure)
Highly Educated.

Also, Obama is as much white as he is black.

[Rilkean]

I'm poor.
One of my parents abandoned me early in my childhood.
I have bad credit.
I barely graduated High School.



Oh so you mean you're a normal american? Yeah.

[bman8810]

Oh so you mean you're a normal american? Yeah.

Somebody missed the point he was making.

[mimixownzall]

Yeah, totally over his head.

[Rilkean]

Not really I just don't care

[Toehammer]

"Reading comprehension is something you learn in grade school, you should try graduating it." is grammatically correct. You should stop knocking "soft science" since for you it's clearly a hard science. Haha a pun.

Seriously you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.



Already explained it to you. Have you been tested for spergers because words seem to be really difficult for you.

WRONG WRONG WRONG

Holy crap, I give you the exact reason you are wrong, with examples/identical analogies and you retort, "____ is grammatically correct, derp derp me right you wrong" with NO evidence, and no appeal to actual rules of grammar. Good grief... ok one more example: Potus says, "I flew Chicago" instead of "I flew to Chicago". EXACT SAME THING. You have no idea about verb transitivity. "I graduated from college" or "I was graduated from college" are both correct. The college graduates students, the students do NOT graduate the college. However, like I said, I sort of understand how you make these mistakes, the analytical power required to correctly understand verb forms and combining them with prepositions requires a great fundamental grasp of grammar. I was always decent at grammar, but becoming fluent in a foreign language (French), forced me to master grammar, or else I would have gotten zeros on all those French tests on the past pluperfect subjunctive.

I wanted to argue without google (just brainpower), but since you have no FUNDAMENTAL grasp of grammar and no attention span (you sound like a modern child to me), I googled something for you... take a look: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/graduated-from.aspx BOOOM and THAT'S THE GAME... omg it says everything I have been teaching you this whole time... a direct quote from the link is: "So listen closely: If you go around saying you graduated college, you sound illiterate. The correct way to say it is that you graduated FROM college. Here's why..."

I earlier suggested you stop to save face... apparently you are not just illogical, you don't take advice very well either.

Also, the fact that you argue who coined a term as if it means something significant? Is that what you mean? I still cannot figure out exactly what your point on coining terms is... what is it? Newton did not call it "Newton's Law", Descartes did not call it the "Cartesian Coordinate System", and Freud did not call it "Freudian Analysis". People who are forgotten with the times are the ones who name the greats' creations. Even in the soft sciences. I like the soft sciences, I like the humanities, I like grammar. Don't try to label me as an asperger afflicted scientist, just because I pointed out where you were being preachy and hypocritical. I love it when people call me out on dumb stuff I do, keeps me honest. Remember, I pointed out what you were saying wrong because you were being snooty to others about being wrong while making mistakes. Judge not lest you be judged.

Hoping you now might stop, in complete sincerity, I am extending an olive branch: want to kill some mobs in Norrath together? The group chat would at least be exciting! :) I am serious; what level characters you playing at the moment, I would love to group with you, so you get to know the real (less argumentative) me.

If not, that is cool, but either way, I am done with this thread, just a waste of time at this point.

[Salty]

women should be cooking

[Alawen Everywhere]

It's pointless to respond to Potus. It gives him no pause to state and repeat things that are provably incorrect.

[Chelsea]

How is this still in Off Topic section?

[Potus]

WRONG WRONG WRONG

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graduating

In the 19th century the transitive sense (1a) was prescribed; the intransitive <I graduated from college> was condemned. The intransitive prevailed nonetheless, and today it is the sense likely to be prescribed and the newer transitive sense (1b) <she graduated high school> the one condemned. All three are standard. The intransitive is currently the most common, the new transitive the least common.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graduating

In the sense “to receive a degree or diploma” graduate followed by from is the most common construction today: Her daughter graduated from Yale in 1981. The passive form was graduated from, formerly insisted upon as the only correct pattern, has decreased in use and occurs infrequently today: My husband was graduated from West Point last year.
Even though it is condemned by some as nonstandard, the use of graduate as a transitive verb meaning “to receive a degree or diploma from” is increasing in frequency in both speech and writing: The twins graduated high school in 1974.


You can stop posting now.

[mimixownzall]

Because everyone knows that posting links after quoting someone proves your point.

[Potus]

You probably shouldn't post anymore either since you were wrong about both the founding fathers and Obama's upbringing (no father, middle class).

Go back to Battlefield *points*

[Shrubwise]

Battlefield is a good game nnnnnnnnnrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[wehrmacht]

I feel so bad for Wehrmacht, in 2008 you had to choose between voting for a black man or a white woman.

I voted for Ron Paul in primary. I would vote for Jesse Jackson, Malcom X, or Charles Manson if they ran on abolishing the fed/central bank.

Since Potus is a neocon zionist, he probably penciled in Lieberman.

[Potus]

Laffo voted for Dennis Kucinich, you couldn't be more wrong.

[bman8810]

Go Ohio!

[Toehammer]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graduating



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graduating



You can stop posting now.

my oh my, once again reading comprehension fail... did you fucking read the links you posted?

from your webster.com link: "In the 19th century the transitive sense (1a) was prescribed; the intransitive <I graduated from college> was condemned. The intransitive prevailed nonetheless, and today it is the sense likely to be prescribed and the newer transitive sense (1b) <she graduated high school> the one condemned. All three are standard. The intransitive is currently the most common, the new transitive the least common."

from YOUR dictionary.reference.com link: "In the sense “to receive a degree or diploma” graduate followed by from is the most common construction today: Her daughter graduated from Yale in 1981. The passive form was graduated from, formerly insisted upon as the only correct pattern, has decreased in use and occurs infrequently today: My husband was graduated from West Point last year.
Even though it is condemned by some as nonstandard, the use of graduate as a transitive verb meaning “to receive a degree or diploma from” is increasing in frequency in both speech and writing: The twins graduated high school in 1974."

These pieces of evidence YOU POSTED, are implicitly saying (although crystal clear), "It's still not correct, and only morons who can't grasp the old versions use it, but since dictionaries evolve we sorta gotta accept it." You fail at reading comprehension, very very badly. Standard does not mean correct. Does your dictionary have lol, omg, and gtfo? All real words now huh? Ever play scrabble? Isn't Homer Simpson's "doh" technically "a word" now. Just because you use dumbed-down language doesn't make it any more correct than what is and ain't real. See anyone can sound like a moron under your rule set.

For this whole thread you are #14 and I am #21:
http://dudelol.com/img/kerwin-bell-spikes-the-ball-into-his-nuts-gets-pushed-by-another-player-and-then-trips-into-another-player.gif

Way to embarrass yourself horribly, then get mentally dominated. Anyone got the Willy Wonka "You lose, good day sir!" .gif? I know my posts are long and well thought out (this shit takes me under 5 min a pop). I am getting tired running circles around your troglodytic brain.

My last offering of an olive branch was more like begging you to sign a formal surrender. But I am serious, wanna play some EQ together? I enjoy your ability to keep trying, despite all odds, logic, and mental resistance pushing against you. No joke though, we should toast some mobs. Well? What do you say?

[Potus]

These pieces of evidence YOU POSTED, are implicitly saying (although crystal clear), "It's still not correct, and only morons who can't grasp the old versions use it, but since dictionaries evolve we sorta gotta accept it."


Laffo, by that logic, the 19th century usage is only correct, so you and your lack of the use "was" is incorrect, only for morons who can't grasp the old versions.

I like how you keep on coming back, and now that you've seen that you're wrong you post some stupid gif.

Get over it, you lost.

[Toehammer]

Laffo, by that logic, the 19th century usage is only correct, so you and your lack of the use "was" is incorrect, only for morons who can't grasp the old versions.

I like how you keep on coming back, and now that you've seen that you're wrong you post some stupid gif.

Get over it, you lost.

... "I graduated from college" or "I was graduated from college" are both correct. ...

I said old versions... read my post. I know they are long and clever, but you can get through it, remember letters form syllables which turn into sentences. Then you can construct a noteworthy idea.

Both old versions are accepted... read YOUR links. Someday, maybe someday, you will proclaim "I graduated college" and it will be accepted. In the future your like omg totally version could be totally cool and accepted amirite? ttyl rofl WTB Potus Nonsense Dictionary

I have never seen someone more wrong in my whole life. I am sorry Potus, the argument has lost its luster. I thought there was a glimmer, a slight chance you might actually admit you need to learn something and embrace self-improvement. Being wrong is one of the best ways to learn. Embrace it. Never posting near you again, /tear.

[wehrmacht]

What the hell does linguistics have to do with this thread anyway...

Potus tried to change the subject to whatever he teaches in public middle school (govt history?) to make himself look smart.

Toehammer responds trying to change the subject to linguistics. Both were completely irrelevant to thread.

[Toehammer]

What the hell does linguistics have to do with this thread anyway...

Potus tried to change the subject to whatever he teaches in public middle school (govt history?) to make himself look smart.

Toehammer responds trying to change the subject to linguistics. Both were completely irrelevant to thread.

I made it blatantly obvious I was trying to derail the thread Potus was trolling. I offer no apology. Besides was funny to see him put up his mental fists and just whimper.

[Potus]

Both old versions are accepted... read YOUR links.

Pretty sure my links say "All three are standard". Which means you're wrong. Again.

You should really stop posting but you'll come back again because you think there's some semblance of face left to save.

[wehrmacht]

I don't know who said what, but is someone really trying to claim the phrase "you should try graduating it." is grammatically correct.

Only way that would make sense is if the person you are talking to is the principal of a school and the word "it" represents a person.

[Rilkean]

Either way I was rally drunk whn I posted it can you guys leave m alone

[wehrmacht]

Either way I was rally drunk whn I posted it can you guys leave m alone

So you and Potus are the same person?

[Potus]

We're the ZOG lizard jew banker and we're here to shut this thread down.

[Loke]

If you hate liberals you should leave the United States since it's founded on liberalism.

You're wrong and using the notion of "liberalism" incorrectly. What it meant to be liberal in the 1700s is drastically different than the modern day usage of the term. Modern day "liberals" in no way resemble liberals of the past.

Edit - I probably should have read past the first page and realized other people mentioned this as well. Regardless, liberalism has some how morphed over the ages into this all encompassing word that includes issues that really in no way relate to the word which the term is derived from... liberty.

[Potus]

Why were so many Founding Fathers socialists?

[Loke]

Why were so many Founding Fathers socialists?

"Socialism" wasn't invented yet. Wouldn't be invented for another forty years.

The founding fathers were anything but socialist. While they may have had some ideas that today could be considered socialist, they in no way envisioned a large central government providing for the needs of the people. They believed in liberty, and the power of the people to govern themselves. I mean, look at the function of the federal government back then. Nothing was centralized and in fact, state governments wielded far more power and responsibility than the federal government.

If you think having a few socialist ideas in a time of radical political evolution makes someone a devout socialist, you're on drugs.

[wehrmacht]

HAHA @ Potus circular logic

By the way, life expectancy was lower than social security collection age when it was passed in 1935. It was designed to pay out 0 basically. As life expectancy increased, it became a ponzi scheme by default. To accomplish social security's original intent, you would have to raise retirement age to 75+

[Lamierus]

I mean, look at the function of the federal government back then. Nothing was centralized and in fact, state governments wielded far more power and responsibility than the federal government..

This was true while the Articles of Confederation were being used. All before the Constitution was drafted and accepted, which made this awful, terrible, horrible, big, centralized, federal government that everyone is certain the founding fathers seemed to hate... :rolleyes:

[Shrubwise]

a goo, a goo ga, a goo ga goo abitty bip bip

[Potus]

The founding fathers were anything but socialist. While they may have had some ideas that today could be considered socialist, they in no way envisioned a large central government providing for the needs of the people. They believed in liberty, and the power of the people to govern themselves. I mean, look at the function of the federal government back then. Nothing was centralized and in fact, state governments wielded far more power and responsibility than the federal government.

If you think having a few socialist ideas in a time of radical political evolution makes someone a devout socialist, you're on drugs.

No, they hated people governing themselves, they were scared of popular rule. Hence no direct elections for senators, the senate being an aristocracy, the electoral college.

Also please explain public roads, bridges, canals, dams, ports. Those are all paid for by taxes, all socialist ideas.

GG you can leave now too, you lost.

[Potus]

HAHA @ Potus circular logic

By the way, life expectancy was lower than social security collection age when it was passed in 1935. It was designed to pay out 0 basically. As life expectancy increased, it became a ponzi scheme by default. To accomplish social security's original intent, you would have to raise retirement age to 75+

More complete lies from Wehrmacht, what a surprise he's wrong:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

[Rifter]

Say "semantics" some more you guys. It makes you sound really smart.

[Hoggen]

No, they hated people governing themselves, they were scared of popular rule. Hence no direct elections for senators, the senate being an aristocracy, the electoral college.

Also please explain public roads, bridges, canals, dams, ports. Those are all paid for by taxes, all socialist ideas.

GG you can leave now too, you lost.

Are you suggesting roads, bridges, canals, dams, and ports did not exist prior to the formulation of the concept of Socialism? Are you suggesting that any of these require public control of manufacturing to accomplish? Either suggestion is wrong.

The founders hated mobs. They were all for democratic election of representatives, but were against direct votes such as 5 men voting to rape one woman or five hundred thousand voting to enslave two hundred thousand.

[Loke]

You can't talk about taxes and the founding fathers guy. There were *some* taxes prior to the civil war, but they were very limited; primarily certain sales taxes and tariffs on imports. I'm not going to argue that there aren't some socialist ideas present in the ethos of U.S. Government, just like I would never argue that it is a true democracy; it isn't a matter of debate, but absolute fact. However, I would argue your supposed notion that the United States was founded on primarily socialist ideals.

If you sincerely think that the foundation of Americanism closer resembles a Marxist ideology than it draws on influences such as Locke, Hobbes or Smith, you're crazy. I think you're taking the simple idea of social contract and perverting it into this modern notion of an all encompassing centralized social government.

Try walking before you take off sprinting big guy.

[Potus]

Are you suggesting roads, bridges, canals, dams, and ports did not exist prior to the formulation of the concept of Socialism? Are you suggesting that any of these require public control of manufacturing to accomplish? Either suggestion is wrong.

The founders hated mobs. They were all for democratic election of representatives, but were against direct votes such as 5 men voting to rape one woman or five hundred thousand voting to enslave two hundred thousand.

Whoa whoa someone's actually talking about Socialism and not braindead conservative's ideals of Socialism. They're two different things.

You can't talk about taxes and the founding fathers guy. There were *some* taxes prior to the civil war, but they were very limited; primarily certain sales taxes and tariffs on imports. I'm not going to argue that there aren't some socialist ideas present in the ethos of U.S. Government, just like I would never argue that it is a true democracy; it isn't a matter of debate, but absolute fact. However, I would argue your supposed notion that the United States was founded on primarily socialist ideals.

If you sincerely think that the foundation of Americanism closer resembles a Marxist ideology than it draws on influences such as Locke, Hobbes or Smith, you're crazy. I think you're taking the simple idea of social contract and perverting it into this modern notion of an all encompassing centralized social government.

Try walking before you take off sprinting big guy.

You got trolled, too.

[Loke]

You're clearly right, so instead of trying to argue my ridiculous point, I'm going to claim I was trolling. Never mind the fact that nothing in this thread was even remotely clever or amusing.

I would rather admit I was wrong than admit that I was "trolling." Seriously, when did posting ignorant statements on the internet to illicit a response become anything other than a horrible waste of time and effort? I'm going to go back to not being retarded now... have fun with the whole trolling thing champ.

[Potus]

I would rather admit I was wrong than admit that I was "trolling." Seriously, when did posting ignorant statements on the internet to illicit a response become anything other than a horrible waste of time and effort? I'm going to go back to not being retarded now... have fun with the whole trolling thing champ.

Hah ok it's quite clear you had no idea what you were talking about when you first entered the thread, claiming that modern liberalism and the original liberalism weren't related at all. Since people have already made that argument (poorly) and got beat down by me (Paine: Social Security, Adams: Socialized Medicine), I simply trolled you by calling them socialists.

Have fun not coming back, but like everyone else in this thread got destroyed by me, you'll come back to answer this because you can't handle being wrong.

[wehrmacht]

More complete lies from Wehrmacht, what a surprise he's wrong:

How am I wrong? There's the stats right there. Average lifespan was lower than social security collection age when it was first passed. You listed some govt site that showed some completely different variables instead of just flat out listing the life expectancy.

Life expectancy 1935
------------------
61.7 both sexes
59.9 male
63.9 female

[Potus]

Look at your original quote:

By the way, life expectancy was lower than social security collection age when it was passed in 1935. It was designed to pay out 0 basically.As life expectancy increased, it became a ponzi scheme by default. To accomplish social security's original intent, you would have to raise retirement age to 75+

Where as the SSA says:
If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

So clearly you're wrong because children were dying at early ages, they never were on the SS roles, they never paid dues, hence it wasn't a Ponzi scheme.

As to your claim it goes insolvent when people live longer, that SS was never designed to pay out anything... ERRR wrong again, your crappy Ron Paul talk radio bullshit has failed you again:

Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits.

As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940.

What a shock, a worthless antisemite who reads unabomber manifestos is wrong.

[Potus]

God damn I own, who else wants to get fucked.

[Loke]

Err, your only claim so far in this thread is that Americanism finds its roots in a quasi-socialist ideology, which is just silly. Claiming that liberalism in its traditional sense some how correlates to socialism is just ridiculous - dictionary.com is all you really need to solve that argument.

The really sad thing about this thread is from the way you're talking it sounds like you actually have been educated, albeit poorly, in American history. I'm not saying your professors or school were wrong, just that in the process of taking objective, factual information; some where along the lines the message got garbled into this ridiculous notion you have of how our nation came to be as it is today.

You've really argued nothing beyond your belief that what it meant to be liberal in 1775 is the same it is today, and that liberalism and socialism some how are the same thing - both of which are misguided and you have yet to support beyond stating something irrelevant about taxes funding public projects and your apparent "troll" claiming the founding fathers were socialist.

Aside from our differing opinions of liberalism (see: you not knowing the definition of liberalism), you have yet to actually disagree with anything I've said.

[Loke]

Hah ok it's quite clear you had no idea what you were talking about when you first entered the thread, claiming that modern liberalism and the original liberalism weren't related at all.

What it meant to be liberal in the 1700s is drastically different than the modern day usage of the term.

Now, lets go spend 3 minutes on the internet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism <-- CLASSIC LIBERALISM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism <--- MODERN LIBERALISM**

**Note the bold words at the bottom of the introduction that read:
The term "social liberalism" is often used interchangeably with "modern liberalism"

Hence, I return to my claim that modern and classical liberalism are two "drastically different" things.

[wehrmacht]

So clearly you're wrong because children were dying at early ages, they never were on the SS roles, they never paid dues, hence it wasn't a Ponzi scheme

Wrong. You failed at basic logic because you based all of your information off a .gov site instead of doing the math yourself.

US Population
---------------
1930 122 million
2000 281 million

Number of people over age 65
----------------------------------
1930 - 6.7 million
2000 - 34.9 million

Population increased 230%, people over age 65 increased by 520%. Your excuse about childhood mortality rate doesn't compensate for that. I stand by my original statement that increase in life expectancy causes it to be a ponzi scam by default.

[Toehammer]

Loke & wehrmacht: you can't teach stupid. Just leave poor Potus alone. After I was done with him he was like the black knight from Monty Python... now he is just trolling for trolling's sake.

[Hoggen]

Wrong. I stand by my original statement that increase in life expectancy causes it to be a ponzi scam by default.

Regardless of whether or not it's a Ponzi scheme ( which I believe is readily evident if you actually look at its execution), SS does not allow the person that pays into it the ability to leave anything to his heirs should he die prematurely. A surviving spouse has her benefits increased temporarily, but if there is no spouse, then anything paid into the system goes to the government imbalance sheets and nowhere else. This is extremely unfair to minorities, who tend to die much earlier, and often haven't even a spouse to affect, but it's just plain unfair and wrong anyway you look at it. You're an ignorant troll POTUS.

[wehrmacht]

This is extremely unfair to minorities, who tend to die much earlier.

The problem with this statement is that you assume everyone is identical then reality demonstrates the exact opposite. Ask any Anthropologist, black children learn how to walk sooner than white children on average, while asian children are slowest on average in development.

This is probably one of the main reasons they're dying before everyone else. Faster development, 15-20% higher blood testosterone levels, more fast twitch muscle fibers, etc. They evolved to breed and die faster and have these other characteristics probably due to being surrounded by more apex predators like lions and hyenas or animals like elephants, while Eurasians were mostly worrying about wolves?

The eurasians also domesticated the wolf probably over 100,000 years ago while the africans never domesticated the lion or any of these other animals eating them. In order to survive, they would have to develop, breed, then die faster than others. If I had to take a wild guess, this is probably one of the main reasons people left Africa in the first place to travel to colder climates. To avoid being eaten by giant animals. It's probably not fun trying to run a plow and having a giant lion run up and attack you.

So yea, please people, give up the communism, one size fits all stuff, because everyone is different.

[Potus]

Err, your only claim so far in this thread is that Americanism finds its roots in a quasi-socialist ideology, which is just silly. Claiming that liberalism in its traditional sense some how correlates to socialism is just ridiculous - dictionary.com is all you really need to solve that argument.


First off, welcome back! I thought you were done with this thread? OH what a surprise, wrong person can't stand being wrong.

Second, never said that; never argued that. If you read the thread, which you didn't, you'd see that people like Wehrmacht claimed that founding fathers had nothing resembling modern day liberals and were instead libertarians.

That's when I pulled up shit that Founding Fathers supported that today's tea party morons call socialism: Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine and John Adams creating a healthcare plan for sailors.

So seriously, you're arguing with yourself because you're strawmanning really bad, try reading a thread next time shithead.

[Potus]

Wrong. You failed at basic logic because you based all of your information off a .gov site instead of doing the math yourself.

US Population
---------------
1930 122 million
2000 281 million

Number of people over age 65
----------------------------------
1930 - 6.7 million
2000 - 34.9 million

Population increased 230%, people over age 65 increased by 520%. Your excuse about childhood mortality rate doesn't compensate for that. I stand by my original statement that increase in life expectancy causes it to be a ponzi scam by default.

Haha you're now arguing that what, the SSA doesn't have accurate information on THE PROGRAM THEY RUN?

Population increases are good for SS, it means more people pay into it. You have no idea how anything works and should probably stop trying to talk about complicated issues.

[Potus]

Regardless of whether or not it's a Ponzi scheme ( which I believe is readily evident if you actually look at its execution)

Ponzi schemes don't last 80 years, hope that helps. Oh wait it won't because you're mentally retarded.

[wehrmacht]

Population increases are good for SS, it means more people pay into it.

Potucommunist spreading more propaganda. There is no correlation whatsoever between population = increase and social security = better.

Yea, you could let one billion younger mexicans in to try and alter the retired/payer ratio, then your problem just becomes larger 20 years later? lol, great job potus.

Lets exchange "collapse" with "cataclysm" and call it better. Have you trademarked that theory yet? The potus theory of infinite growth?

[Loke]

edit: you know what, never mind. You're clearly retarded.

[Hoggen]

Ponzi schemes don't last 80 years, hope that helps. Oh wait it won't because you're mentally retarded.

Ponzi schemes work until they reach a tipping point financially. You are talking the entire nation, not a few thousand people. I think you need to go get your own intelligence measured, POTUS. You are seriously lacking in cognitive skills.

You're a chattering bird with a bird-brain to match. You can't even come up with a reason why you support a tax that leaves families without any remnant of what was taken after the contributor dies.

[Hoggen]

The problem with this statement is that you assume everyone is identical then reality demonstrates the exact opposite. Ask any Anthropologist, black children learn how to walk sooner than white children on average, while asian children are slowest on average in development.


What does anything you said have to do with average life expectancies or the nature of Social Security?

[Potus]

You're a chattering bird with a bird-brain to match. You can't even come up with a reason why you support a tax that leaves families without any remnant of what was taken after the contributor dies.

It actually does, widows get benefits and so do children if they're dependents.

You don't know anything about the system but you've heard BAD THINGS ABOUT IT ON TALK RADIO so clearly you're the expert.

[Potus]

Potucommunist spreading more propaganda. There is no correlation whatsoever between population = increase and social security = better.


Speaking of propaganda where did your Mein Kampft talking points thread go?

[bman8810]

At this point I am just coming to this thread to see Potus get intellectually demolished. It's completely lols-worthy.

[Loke]

Mein Kampft

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/171946298_31988a2d82.jpg

Oh, the classics...

[wehrmacht]

What does anything you said have to do with average life expectancies or the nature of Social Security?

Because you were trying to say they die faster due to economic status or something like that but Hispanics are often in the same economic bracket and live 7.7 years longer.

[Toehammer]

At this point I am just coming to this thread to see Potus get intellectually demolished. It's completely lols-worthy.

It (Potus) has become a real train wreck. Fun to see the crash! Starts around page 5 or so, enjoy! :D

[Hoggen]

Because you were trying to say they die faster due to economic status or something like that but Hispanics are often in the same economic bracket and live 7.7 years longer.

I wasn't trying to say anything. I said that the average life expectancy of blacks is lower, and since SS only pays while you are alive, they get screwed even more than their white counterparts. White males average 76 years. Blacks 70. They lose out of roughly 100 k at max SS when you compare them.

[Rilkean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLKnCeeAW48

[Potus]

It (Potus) has become a real train wreck. Fun to see the crash! Starts around page 5 or so, enjoy! :D

Hmm page 5? Oh yes that's when you stepped in it over grammar.

Page 10 was where you had to post animated gifs because Merriam Websters agrees you're illiterate.

[wehrmacht]

The corpse of Potus is located under this guy's shoe

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/4093/teafj.jpg

[Xeldrakka]

Should I even bother responding in a constructive manner to the original post, or has this thread basically become about watching Potus make a total douch of himself?