<p>Chuck Norris was the best army that America, no cross that...the universe had to offer.</p>
<p>How did the whole Chuck Norris thing even start?</p>
<p>Did it... just... start?</p>
<p>Git R' done is so funny</p>
<p>History text said that the south was greatly outnumbered (i forgot the population disparity) and as most of you know had less railroads, industry, weapons, ect.</p>
<p>However despite this, the causalty rate favored the south 2:3.</p>
<p>They eventually lost becuase simply the never had a lot of guys to start and ran out of guys. </p>
<p>But had there been an equal number of men, STATISTICALLY, the south would have easily won.</p>
<p>That's why i said man for man, they were one of the best army's ever.</p>
<p>Pickett's Charge lost the war for the South.</p>
<p>The South still totally rocked. Those darn Yankees can't hold a light next to the South. SOUTHERN PRIDE!!!!</p>
<p><a href="http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm%5B/url%5D">http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm</a></p>
<p>The top 16 states with the highest IQ's went for Kerry. 17th is my state, Virginia, and we're not even conservative anymore. </p>
<p>Your "deep-south" states? NC = 33, Georgia = 36, Texas = 40, Alabama = 41, Mississippi = 50</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://www.ginandtacos.com/education.jpg</a></p>
<p>"How did the most and least educated states vote in 2000?"</p>
<p>Food for thought;)</p>
<p>113 IQ? I guess people who are actually smart didn't vote at all :D</p>
<p>Or don't try to pass of known hoaxes off as facts :D</p>
<p>How do you know that firewalker's statistics are false and yours are correct?</p>
<p>Dont be naive</p>
<p>
[quote]
Back in November 2002, someone (using the name Robert Calvert) created and posted to a USENET newsgroup a phony chart which purportedly showed the average IQ per state in the U.S., along with the average income and a column indicating how that state voted in the 2000 presidential election. The gag was that all the states that voted for Vice-President Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election were clustered at the top of the IQ scale, while all the states that voted for then-Texas Governor George W. Bush were clustered at the bottom. </p>
<p>The chart's creator claimed to have been inspired by the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations and to have drawn his IQ data from the Ravens APM, but save for the average income per state numbers, which were valid but outdated figures taken from the 1994 World Almanac the chart was completely bogus. (The Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices is not really a general intelligence test, nor do its publishers offer state-by-state test results data.) Nonetheless, a number of news publications (including the staid Economist) were taken in by the hoax some mistakenly citing the information as having come from the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, or even IQ and the Wealth of States and published portions of the chart, and discussed it as if it were valid. (A similar hoax about presidential IQs produced similar media-fooling results back in 2001.) </p>
<p>Now, someone has dusted off the same chart and (omitting the economic data) applied it to the 2004 presidential election, keeping the primary gag intact: the "blue" (i.e., Democratic states) are all clustered at the top of the IQ scale, while the "red" (i.e., Republican) states are clustered at the bottom. Same hoax, different year. If 2008 produces another close presidential election as 2000 and 2004 did, expect to see this same joke again four years from now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Snopes is on the ball almost all of the time.</p>
<p>Well, there you go. Anyway, I think it is quite a creative thing to do, comparing iq scores to voting statistics. And understandable... after all, the Democrats DID lose the election. Is it too personal a question to ask if you are a Republican? Because we seem to get into arguments quite often.</p>
<p>No I am not Republican. But I am a guy who checks up on facts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, I think it is quite a creative thing to do, comparing iq scores to voting statistics
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And yes, that would be creative if the statistics weren't completely pulled out of thin air</p>
<p>"The Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices is not really a general intelligence test, nor do its publishers offer state-by-state test results data."</p>
<p>God damnit. Might not be general int, but testing data, a la SAT, but unfortunately thats even a stretch because they dont offer state by state test results? *sigh</p>
<p>The whole thing was a hoax you fool. Reread what you quoted</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices is not really a general intelligence test, nor do its publishers offer state-by-state test results data."
[/quote]
nor do its publishers offer state by state results data
Are you such a partisan hack that facts don't even matter to you?</p>
<p>"... but unfortunately thats even a stretch because they dont offer state by state test results?"</p>
<p>I'm not completely blinded</p>