Zone1 Let's Talk About "Merit"

[Hector12]

Wow, you missed the point. It wasn't that McCarthy "won" it was that he was competitive at all. An incumbent president should NEVER face a serious challenge, and ones who have (Ford, Carter, Bush-41) have usually gone on to lose. Yet Johnson only pulled out 48% of the vote to McCarthy's 42%. This shows how completely unpopular Johnson had become, and why he withdrew from the race.




Actually, RFK won a bunch of important primaries and probably would have been selected if he hadn't been assassinated.

Back in those days, few states held primaries, most delegate were chosen through caucus.

According to The Real Majority: An Extraordinary Examination of the American Electorate by Ben Wattenberg and Richard M. Scammon, during the primary of 1968 Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy were never ahead of Nixon. Humphrey sometimes was. Also, about 90% agreed that "student disturbances" were a major problem. They did not say that about the War on Vietnam. I was in the anti war movement back then, but I never imagined that we had majority support.

 

[Hector12]

Shows why IQ is an overrated and outdated measure. In any event, I wasn't talking about Software Engineers.

Take a course in a computer language and see if it is easy.

As our economy and technology become increasingly complex, the importance of being born with a high IQ will incease.

 

[Hector12]

I hate you because you are an utter piece of human excrement. Happy to have cleared that up for you. I don't hate you for who you are, I hate you for what you do.
You seem to hate black people for who they are, when a lot of their lot in this country has been imposed on them. It's like slut-shaming a rape victim, and it's contemptable.

You hate me because you hate the truths I express here, and you cannot refute them.

 

[Hector12]

Um, no, it's a pretty clear indication of serious problems. If you are spending this much time reposting on multiple boards about your idiotic racist theories, and you blame black people for such things as "Why people don't support tax increases", it shows you are kind of the one with a problem.

You express resentment about the most accomplished group of people on earth. You are incapable of discussing serious issues calmly and rationally. The problem is yours.

 

[Hector12]

Again, Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, UFO conspiracists, and other highly evolved neurotics think they sound rational, too.

I think they are not rational, and I can explain why. Because you are incapable of justifying your opinions you resort to insults and name calling.

 

[Hector12]

If you are unclear on the concept, go into a crowd of people and start repeating the nonsense you say here. When people start walking away from you, that's probably a good sign you are not well.

There are plenty of people who agree with me. The truth cannot be concealed forever. I have been better received on this website than you have been.

With your insults and name calling you project your psychological problems onto me.

 

[Hector12]

You seem to hate black people for who they are, when a lot of their lot in this country has been imposed on them. It's like slut-shaming a rape victim, and it's contemptable.

By making that claim about me you commit the straw man fallacy. On several occasions on this website I have said that I evaluate Negroes using the same criteria I use in evaluating whites.

If discrimination and persecution justify inferior performance and bad behavior Jews and Orientals would not be the accomplished and wonderful people they are today.

 

[JoeB131]

Jews are disliked by those who resent their intelligence, their success, and their prosperity. No one dislikes blacks for those reasons.

No, they are disliked because of their shifty behavior, like stealing Palestine from the Arabs or screwing over Germans during the Weimar period.

I'm usually reluctant to blame a whole group for the actions of a few bad actors, but it isn't about jealousy.

Hitler did the same thing you are doing, scapegoating another group for problems people should be solving on their own.

I think they are not rational, and I can explain why. Because you are incapable of justifying your opinions you resort to insults and name calling.

Uh, you work on the assumption your hatred and racism deserves the kind of thought I'd give to a discussion of budget. Your racist garbage was rejected decades ago.

There are plenty of people who agree with me. The truth cannot be concealed forever. I have been better received on this website than you have been.

I've been here for 12 years, you've been here for less than six months, and I doubt you are going to last that long before you get permabanned.

By making that claim about me you commit the straw man fallacy. On several occasions on this website I have said that I evaluate Negroes using the same criteria I use in evaluating whites.

I'm pretty good at sizing people up. Your level of hate indicates a deep-seated pathology. Honestly, dude, seek professional help. You have a serious problem, and unless you plan to move out to some lilywhite rural community somewhere, you are going to have to deal with black people. They aren't going anywhere.

 

[JoeB131]

According to The Real Majority: An Extraordinary Examination of the American Electorate by Ben Wattenberg and Richard M. Scammon, during the primary of 1968 Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy were never ahead of Nixon. Humphrey sometimes was. Also, about 90% agreed that "student disturbances" were a major problem. They did not say that about the War on Vietnam. I was in the anti war movement back then, but I never imagined that we had majority support.

Do we have another Doug1943 here, who claims he was Forrest Gump.

Nobody believes you were part of anti-war rallies.

If you had been around, you'd realize it was a complicated issue. By 1968 EVERYONE realized that Vietnam was a terrible mistake, but the disagreement was on how to extricate ourselves from the mistake. The idea of giving up on a war was just unthinkable to Americans at that point.

Dick Daley sent out the CPD to beat up anti-war protestors at the 1968 convention, but deep down, he hated the war, because it was draining resources from cities like his. RFK was riding anti-war sentiment to the nomination, and then he was murdered. Humphrey refused to take a stand against the war because he was afraid Johnson might jump back into the race if he did. Nixon promised he had a secret plan to end the war (he didn't). Wallace was the only real "hawk" in the race, but to him, stifling the civil rights movement was more important.

It should be pointed out that George Wallace only got 13% of the vote. That's how small the racist contingent was in this country even then. But it poisons the politics of anyone who embraces it.

 

[Hector12]

It should be pointed out that George Wallace only got 13% of the vote. That's how small the racist contingent was in this country even then. But it poisons the politics of anyone who embraces it.

When Nixon won the Wallace vote he won by a landslide in 1972, even though the War in Vietnam had become unpopular. I voted for Humphrey in 1968. I voted for McGovern in 1972.

If it had not been for the black ghetto riots from 1964 to 1968 a Democrat dove would have been elected in 1968 who would have ended the War in Vietnam.

The War in Vietnam was even more unjustified than Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Vietnam is on the other side of the world. Vietnam is unnecessary for our economy and out security. In his Memoirs Eisenhower said that his advisors told him that as many as 80% of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh.

Nevertheless, I have known and like Vietnamese war refugees.

 

[Hector12]

I'm pretty good at sizing people up. Your level of hate indicates a deep-seated pathology. Honestly, dude, seek professional help. You have a serious problem, and unless you plan to move out to some lilywhite rural community somewhere, you are going to have to deal with black people. They aren't going anywhere.

Luke 4:23 Physician heal thyself.

 

[Hector12]

Jews don't get picked on because they are smart. They get picked on because no matter where they go, they have a lovely habit of wearing out their welcome.

"Jewish Genius," By Charles Murray, Commentary, April 02, 2007​

Since its first issue in 1945, COMMENTARY has published hundreds of articles about Jews and Judaism. As one would expect, they cover just about every important aspect of the topic. But there is a lacuna, and not one involving some obscure bit of Judaica. COMMENTARY has never published a systematic discussion of one of the most obvious topics of all: the extravagant overrepresentation of Jews, relative to their numbers, in the top ranks of the arts, sciences, law, medicine, finance, entrepreneurship, and the media.

I have personal experience with the reluctance of Jews to talk about Jewish accomplishment–my co-author, the late Richard Herrnstein, gently resisted the paragraphs on Jewish IQ that I insisted on putting in The Bell Curve (1994). Both history and the contemporary revival of anti-Semitism in Europe make it easy to understand the reasons for that reluctance. But Jewish accomplishment constitutes a fascinating and important story. Recent scholarship is expanding our understanding of its origins.

And so this Scots-Irish Gentile from Iowa hereby undertakes to tell the story. I cover three topics: the timing and nature of Jewish accomplishment, focusing on the arts and sciences; elevated Jewish IQ as an explanation for that accomplishment; and current theories about how the Jews acquired their elevated IQ...

As soon as Jewish children born under legal emancipation had time to grow to adulthood, they started appearing in the first ranks of the arts and sciences. During the four decades from 1830 to 1870, when the first Jews to live under emancipation reached their forties, 16 significant Jewish figures appear. In the next four decades, from 1870 to 1910, the number jumps to 40. During the next four decades, 1910–1950, despite the contemporaneous devastation of European Jewry, the number of significant figures almost triples, to 114.

To get a sense of the density of accomplishment these numbers represent, I will focus on 1870 onward, after legal emancipation had been achieved throughout Central and Western Europe. How does the actual number of significant figures compare to what would be expected given the Jewish proportion of the European and North American population? From 1870 to 1950, Jewish representation in literature was four times the number one would expect. In music, five times. In the visual arts, five times. In biology, eight times. In chemistry, six times. In physics, nine times. In mathematics, twelve times. In philosophy, fourteen times.

Disproportionate Jewish accomplishment in the arts and sciences continues to this day. My inventories end with 1950, but many other measures are available, of which the best known is the Nobel Prize. In the first half of the 20th century, despite pervasive and continuing social discrimination against Jews throughout the Western world, despite the retraction of legal rights, and despite the Holocaust, Jews won 14 percent of Nobel Prizes in literature, chemistry, physics, and medicine/physiology. In the second half of the 20th century, when Nobel Prizes began to be awarded to people from all over the world, that figure rose to 29 percent. So far, in the 21st century, it has been 32 percent. Jews constitute about two-tenths of one percent of the world’s population. You do the math.

Jewish Genius

W. H. Brady Scholar Charles Murray Since its first issue in 1945, COMMENTARY has published hundreds of articles about Jews and Judaism. As one would expect, they cover just about every important aspect of the topic. But there is a lacuna, and not one involving some obscure bit of Judaica...

www.aei.org

 

[IM2]

You keep thinking about those reparations.

Yep, because it's a debt long overdue.

 

[IM2]

Um, wasn't that already paid through emancipation?

The point was, all those slave owners who took out mortgages on their slaves were left high and dry when Lincoln freed them all. Do you think those banks said, "Aw Schucks" and forgave those loans? Heck, no, they went in there and scooped up the land. This is why the "Carpetbaggers" (White Northerners who moved South to take economic advantage) and "Scalawags" (White Southerners who collaborated with reconstruction) were even more hated than the freed blacks.

Leaving aside the immorality of one human being owning another, these people were deprived of their property and punished for being on the losing side of a war.

Carpetbaggers & Scalawags - Definition, South, Reconstruction | HISTORY

Carpetbaggers and scalawags were the terms for northerners who took advantage of post-Civil War upheaval and southerners who supported Reconstruction policies.

www.history.com

The biggest problem with reconstruction was that it upended the economic order of the South, didn't really invest the money or the time to create something better, and when white southerner did regain their franchise, they did it with a vengeance.

I do think we need to do a lot of work to fix all of this, but handing black people bags full of money for what happened to their ancestors is just throwing good money after bad.

Slaveowners received reparations for their lost slaves and the south chose to form their own country and fight a war.

OK. I'll post this example again to show you just how disingenuous your argument is.

I am quite sure no one living in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government made the Fort Laramie treaty with the Sioux Nation or were participants in Custers violation of that treaty. Nor were they alive when President Grant decided it was OK to let settlers and people prospecting for gold tresspass into land promised to the Sioux thereby violating the treaty. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to take the land from the Sioux by military force. No one in 1980 was alive when the U.S. government decided to cut off supplies they promised the Sioux as condition for their surrender after whipping the U.S. Army at The Battle of Little Bighorn. But in 1980, the government of the United States decided reparations were due to the Sioux Nation for what was done to them in the 1800’s. They awarded the Sioux nation 105 million dollars

And that's just one. Besides things didn't stop with slavery and the study of reparations was never just for slavery. But just like everything that has involved equality, dishonest whites to half a story and used it to race bait. When I was born, Jim Crow was in effect, and that had a negative impact that touches us right now.

THE PAST IMPACTS TODAY. NO ONE HERE WAS ALIVE ON JULY 4, 1776, BUT BECAUSE OF THINGS DONE BY YOUR ANCESTORS YOU WILL BE CELEBRATING TODAY WHILE DECLARING THAT WHAT YOUR ANCESTORS DID 247 YEARS AGO IS WHY YOU ARE HERE TODAY.

So maybe it's time some whites dropped that tired ass:

handing black people bags full of money for what happened to their ancestors...

BS.

 

[IM2]

I'm quite certain my IQ is higher than Hectors and that my score on my college entrance exam was higher than Lisas. Affirmative Action didn't take the ACT for me and I scored in the top percentiles on that test. So I could have gone Ivy league, but it was cheaper to go to the state university located in my hometown. I could stay home, eat good and not worry about money.

It has been determined that the current IQ tests don't prove intelligence and almost 1,000 colleges/universities have made entrance exams optional. So Hector is a little behind the times. So is Lisa.

 

[Hector12]

Yep, because it's a debt long overdue.

Why are American Negroes more affluent on the average than Negroes in any black majority, black run country in the world?

 

[Hector12]

I'm quite certain my IQ is higher than Hectors and that my score on my college entrance exam was higher than Lisas. Affirmative Action didn't take the ACT for me and I scored in the top percentiles on that test. So I could have gone Ivy league, but it was cheaper to go to the state university located in my hometown. I could stay home, eat good and not worry about money.

It has been determined that the current IQ tests don't prove intelligence and almost 1,000 colleges/universities have made entrance exams optional. So Hector is a little behind the times. So is Lisa.

When I was growing up I was taught by my parents that blacks are just as intelligent, on the average, as whites, and that this would become obvious as soon as blacks were no longer discriminated against. I believed it. That belief is no longer consistent with the evidence.

 

[Hector12]

It has been determined that the current IQ tests don't prove intelligence and almost 1,000 colleges/universities have made entrance exams optional. So Hector is a little behind the times. So is Lisa.

How has it been determined? The only thing that has been determined is that Negroes usually perform less well than whites and Orientals.

In The Bell Curve Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein pointed out that when blacks and whites get the same scores, Negroes still tend to perform less well than whites and Orientals.

 

[Lisa558]

I'm quite certain my IQ is higher than Hectors and that my score on my college entrance exam was higher than Lisas. Affirmative Action didn't take the ACT for me and I scored in the top percentiles on that test. So I could have gone Ivy league, but it was cheaper to go to the state university located in my hometown. I could stay home, eat good and not worry about money.

It has been determined that the current IQ tests don't prove intelligence and almost 1,000 colleges/universities have made entrance exams optional. So Hector is a little behind the times. So is Lisa.

The reason schools are abolishing SATs is that they are admitting blacks with scores far lower than the whites and Asians they reject - and is more evidence of lower standards for blacks.

It’s the same reason TJ High School got rid of its entrance exam. Only 3% of the student body was black because so few blacks scored high enough for admission. So they abolished the exam.

And saying you were in the top deciles could mean the top 40%. I’m not impressed. If you were an excellent student, you would have been Phi Beta Kappa and at the very top of your graduating class. So don’t try the “I’m smarter than you” contest with me.

 

[JoeB131]

When Nixon won the Wallace vote he won by a landslide in 1972, even though the War in Vietnam had become unpopular. I voted for Humphrey in 1968. I voted for McGovern in 1972.

Except there wasn't a "Wallace Vote", really.
Nixon got 43% of the vote in 1968. Wallace got 13%. Humphrey got 43%
In 1972, Nixon got 61% of the vote. He just didn't pick up the Wallace Vote of inbreds in the South, he picked up a large chunk of the Humphrey vote.
Because McGovern was a shit candidate.

Nixon really didn't get held accountable for Vietnam because he didn't start it, and he was doing what he could to end it. By 1972, he had hit the Paris accords, and the first troops were coming home. McGovern was a one-issue candidate and Nixon stole his only real issue.

If it had not been for the black ghetto riots from 1964 to 1968 a Democrat dove would have been elected in 1968 who would have ended the War in Vietnam.

Why do you keep repeating shit that was debunked? The Democrats didn't run a dove in 1968. They ran Humphrey, who was so afraid of Johnson, he didn't take a firm position on the war until the end. In fact, his full throated condemnation of Wallace's racism and the Vietnam War brought him pretty close to winning.


After the Democratic Convention in late August, Humphrey trailed Nixon by double digits in most polls, and his chances seemed hopeless. Many within Humphrey's campaign saw their real goal as avoiding the potential humiliation of finishing behind Wallace in the electoral college vote (if not necessarily the popular vote), rather than having any serious chance of defeating Nixon. According to Time magazine, "The old Democratic coalition was disintegrating, with untold numbers of blue-collar workers responding to Wallace's blandishments, Negroes threatening to sit out the election, liberals disaffected over the Vietnam War, the South lost. The war chest was almost empty, and the party's machinery, neglected by Lyndon Johnson, creaked in disrepair."[92] Calling for "the politics of joy", and using the still-powerful labor unions as his base, Humphrey fought back. In order to distance himself from Johnson, and to take advantage of the Democratic plurality in voter registration, Humphrey stopped being identified in ads as "Vice-President Hubert Humphrey", instead being labelled "Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey".

Humphrey attacked Wallace as a racist bigot who appealed to the darker impulses of Americans. Wallace had been rising in the polls as a result of tailoring his message to audiences outside of his southern strongholds by using anti-establishment rhetoric and attacks on "concentrated wealth", with Wallace's polling numbers peaking at 21% nationally in late September and early October. However, Wallace's momentum went into reverse after he selected Curtis LeMay as his running mate. Curtis LeMay's suggestion of using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam conjured up the worst memories of the 1964 Goldwater campaign.[13] Labor unions also undertook a major effort to win back union members who were supporting Wallace, with some substantial success. Polling numbers that had showed Wallace winning almost one-half of union members in the summer of 1968 went increasingly into sharp decline as the election campaign progressed into the fall up to early November election day. As election day approached and Wallace's support in the North, Midwest and West began to wane, Humphrey finally began to climb in the polls.

In October, Humphrey—who was rising sharply in the polls due to the sharp decline of the Wallace polling—began to distance himself publicly from the Johnson administration on the Vietnam War, calling for a bombing halt. The key turning point for Humphrey's campaign came when President Johnson officially announced a bombing halt, and even a possible peace deal, the weekend before the election. The "Halloween Peace" gave Humphrey's campaign a badly needed boost. In addition, Senator Eugene McCarthy finally endorsed a vote for Humphrey in late October after previously refusing to do so, and by election day the polls were reporting a dead heat.[93]

In fact, Tricky Dick actually put a monkey wrench into Vietnam Peace Negotiations in order to sabotage Humphrey, and it worked.

The War in Vietnam was even more unjustified than Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Vietnam is on the other side of the world. Vietnam is unnecessary for our economy and out security. In his Memoirs Eisenhower said that his advisors told him that as many as 80% of the Vietnamese supported Ho Chi Minh.

All true. Yet both parties fully supported the war. This is how I can tell you aren't as old as you say you are. At the time, neither party wanted to be beaten over the head with "Who Lost Vietnam" the way the Republicans beat Democrats with "Who Lost China" in the 1950's. So even though Vietnam was all manner of not that important, we dumped truckloads of blood and treasure into a country that was of no importance to us.

Nevertheless, I have known and like Vietnamese war refugees.

I'm sure. They never stole your girl like Jamal did.

"Jewish Genius," By Charles Murray, Commentary, April 02, 2007​

Except intelligence isn't the issue most people have with Jews.
It's their lack of ethics.

I was brought up Catholic. I became an Atheist when I was about 20-25. But I am pretty much stuck with most of the Catholic ethical system. Not because I love the Church, because I honestly can't stand it. But ethically, these are my default settings.

Jews, on the other hand, have their own ethical system that tells them they are God's Chosen people and everyone is a gentile who can be cheated.

Now, on one hand, this kind of culture is why they survived when the rest of the world was embracing Christianity and Islam. On the other hand, it made them kind of a despised minority - i.e. the Spanish Inquisition, the Russian Pogroms, the Holocaust.