What President Bush's reply to Cindy Sheehan should say.

[Junkpile]

RE: Differences between an 87 and an 88

Thank you Gadget. I can relate to this subject to some degree. I don't have any real speech impediment, but I do speak with a southern accent. That alone is enough to make some people question my intelligence from the start. I know men that I view as some of the most intelligent people I have ever met, but they talk slow and they often stumble and get sidetracked when trying to verbally express themselves.
-------
Intelligence is nothing without an education to give it direction. Education is, of course, useless without intelligence. We as a society have grasped the concept that education is the lone yardstick to go by. We've ended up with a country full of highly educated, very articulate, MORONS.
-------
Sparky, my tests were very similar to yours. I took one when I was 8, and I think my score was 134. I took another in highschool and it was 143. I also always had trouble keeping my head above water in school. I wasn't interested in it......which now that I think back on it, proves I am an idiot regardless of what the tests said. Take math for example. Hated it, and I mean with a passion. Now I work in metal fabrication and do alot of design and prototype work, and I am limited by my poor math skills. Only a person lacking in intelligence would shoot himself in the foot like that!

 

[Junkpile]

Oh yeah, about Cindy Sheehan. I thought he should walk out there with a garden hose and run them off, then release the dogs.

 

[90Xjay]

Cindy Sheehan is a pawn in a much bigger game. Bush has already met with her and countless other families. She is a grief stricken mother and for that she has my sympathy. I also know that her son voluntered to join the military and WAS NOT drafted. So Bush did not send her son ANYWHERE that he did not already know ahead of time he could go.
I honor his service and duty.

Sorry, I can't say more now, I have to get ready to take my son to speech therapy, he had a surgery on his tonsils and now has a slight speech problem we are working on. And he still is incredibly smart, not Stephen Hawkin smart...wait, he has a speech problem too...

Not too thin skinned and still just happy to be here,

90 :lol: :lol:

 

[Sparky-Watts]

So, the only way to measure someone's intelligence would be if they had an IQ test by a shrink? Interesting statement there. So, that would mean we will never know if, say, Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent man or a dolt... really, we can only speculate because there is no record of his shrink-administered IQ test. Nor any other brilliant mind from our past where there is no proof by your standard.

I hadn't made any personal jabs yet (the "SpinDoctor" thing was a freakin' joke, lighten up, Frances.) However, since you took one at me, I guess I'll return the favor with the same jab at you: So far, nothing you have written about my posts demonstrates your intelligence, either. Here's a tip: Read the posts before you fly off the handle with some obtuse response in your close-minded prose. What was my original statement? No, don't look back, that's cheating. If you had read it, you would know. Need a hint?

Show me verifiable proof of either man's IQ or shut up.

You seem to keep wanting to argue about who is smarter and intelligence. I said "IQ" not smarts or intelligence. They ARE NOT THE SAME FREAKIN' THING!!!!!!!!!! It was a simple statement that three pages later you still have failed to grasp. Sure you can tell smarts and academic intelligence from tests, I'm sick of typing that statement over and over again. Now, read very, very carefully here: Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is not directly related to academic intelligence or success. Why is that so freakin' hard for your little mind to grasp?!? Had your original statement been, "Bush did better on tests than Kerry", I would never have interjected my comments. But, no, you don't have a grasp of the difference between academic intelligence and actual IQ, so you've pecked your way around the keyboard a few dozen times in an attempt to convince everyone that you are right (like you always do) while turning a blind eye to the actual points being made (like you always do), and when I continued to calmly show you the errors in your "logic", you got frustrated and turned to insults (like you always do).

Fortunately you have posted your IQ score because you have not shown me any of these indications otherwise.

Case in point.

The fact that he graduated from Yale and has an MBA from Harvard is not enough so...

As Mingez so aptly pointed out earlier, money can buy anyone a degree. I'll take his statement and add that money can buy anyone a degree, but no amount of money will ever buy anyone an IQ higher than that which God gave them.

Go ahead and live the rest of your life living under the spell you are under. It is a powerful one.

You must work for the Department of Redundancy Department where you work...... :lol:

Here's a thought: Back away from the computer for a moment, step out of your delusional surreality, and re-read this entire string of posts. If you still don't understand my original statement, or the arguments I gave supporting it, then there's no use wasting anymore bandwidth on you.

 

[southtj]

Re: RE: Ideas for a new poll?

People like to toss around the statement that you can buy a degree. Anyone have any proof of that? Are you saying he didn't earn his degree, that he didn't even show up but just paid someone for his degree? Has anyone ever shown one small shred of proof the President Bush bought his degree? If not, let's stop making up accusations just to fit our arguments.

 

[TwistedCU]

This is my last post on the subject of IQ analysis, the last one on that subject, the final entry on this site for that item in question. As for IQ analysis, no more after this one.

Oops, was that redundant? I guess I have a flaw or two. I have also been known for an overly extensive and improper use of commas, dashes, and periods. I also have been known to misspell (in my defense some are typo's) a word or two on occaision. Throw in an error in grammer here or there and I'm downright human. Good thing this isn't an IQ test :shock:

Sparky, IQ tests have not been around forever. For years historians and others have used various methods to calculate IQ scores for famous people throughout history. Many of these methods can and are still used today when IQ results are not available. This is what the "conservative nutjob" Sailer was basing his report on. Did you take the time to read it, or did you dismiss it immediately when you saw the author? It is actually a good piece of work.

Doing a Google search on "IQ comparison" will net you over 900,000 hits. I suggest you take a gander:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=IQ+Comparison&btnG=Search

To see a simple example that blows your thoery out of the proverbial water, just click the very first result. Oh, let's skip to it... click this one first:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/

This chart ( http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/SATIQ.html ) puts Bush's IQ in the 93.9 percentile. Gee that was easy, it was simple, it wasn't hard. Didn't take much, nothin' to it. By the way I should mention that was pretty painless and was done without toil. Damn, I was redundant again and repeated myself once more again! :x Man, I gotta work on that.
************
The Bush -vs- Kerry IQ is far less important to me than proving that Bush is more intelligent than people are indoctrined to believe. That was the motive behind the Kerry post. I could care less about John Kerry... he's a loser.

 

[TwistedCU]

1978 CJ5 drivetrain

the actual certified, verifiable results of the actual IQ tests

Actually, we're all human, aren't we.

 

[mingez]

Re: RE: What President Bush

Mingez wrote:

When you interview someone, what do you look for? Good communication skills? Poise under questioning. Articulate speech? If he has none of the above qualities, and has a Harvard degree, I don't care if he's number one in his class, he's not hired.

Interesting.

Using that quality-of-people yardstick, the following people – all with speech defects -- would have been relegated to the junkpile of humanity by Mingez:

That's an unfair statement. I'm not using that scenario as a "quality-of-people yardstick." I'm using it as a "Who's right for the job" yardstick. I'm not suggesting that if you can't speak, you're "relegated to the junkpile of humanity." (Nor am I suggesting that they are 3/5 human..JK) What I AM suggesting is, if you don't have the skills necessary for the job, then you aren't qualified, and thus the wrong fit for the position.

Remember, I said, "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL." Suggesting, that if the candidates are equal in every area EXCEPT poise, speech, articulation would you not hire the person that was superior in that arena? Point being, it's a valid characteristic.

I'm just in awe of the fact that people's response to the whole articuation this is: "Ahhh, it's not important." NOT IMPORTANT? It's a little important. Is it the most important attribute a President can have? No. But it's not so insignificant, as many here are saying, to suggest it's to be dismissed.

I'm not going to hire a guy to sing if he's got a horrible voice. One of the jobs of the President of the United States, (like it or not) is to convey confidence, arouse, motivate, and speak to the masses. If you can't speak, you can't speak. It's not my rule.

Similarly, I'm not going to hire an uncharismatic salesperson without people skills. It's a people-oriented job. No people skills= no job.

My warehouse crew for example. They pick up heavy stuff. If you aren't strong, perhaps it's just not the right job for you.

I personally am not a very good at math. I wouldn't hire myself to be an accountant. Should I be "Relegated to the Junk pile of Humanity, as Gadget so pinpointedly jabbed? No. SHOULD I be hired? NO again.

If Gadget, or anyone else is suggesting I hire someone that isn't poised, articulate or a good communicator, than I may as well prepare to have my business go down in flames. If my stores don't sell, I don't get paid. I need guys and gals that can communicate. You have got to be able to roll with the punches, wheel and deal, and overcome objections on the spot. Pause or studder, and your commission is walking out the door.
****Point being, I'm not willing to risk my livelihood on gambling that the inarticulate fellow might make a sale or two. Food and Gas are expensive, and so is my rent.

So, in reference to Gadget's list of prominent, but speech impeded folks including Darwin, Bruce Willis, John Scully and Porky Pig. Would I hire them for President, or a sales position at one of my stores???... HELL NO. But in no way does that suggest that they aren't whole or capable people within their field of expertise. Well, with the exception of the pig maybe.

I'll tell you this much, Darwin, Bruce, Scully and Porky have no business running the country either.

 

[90Xjay]

Mingez wrote:

....the President of the United States, (like it or not) is to convey confidence, arouse....

Oh yeah, President Clinton... :lol: :lol: :lol: JK

I just could not pass that one up

 

[mingez]

Whatever you feel Bush is lacking(I feel he sucks on immigration and support for Israel) that is your right, it is also your patriotic duty to accept his presidency, be critical only if you voted, and plan how your party is going to take back the majority next time.

LOL, about the loons.

I disagree.
It IS my patriotic duty to be critical of leadership if I feel they are wrong in some way. Nobody spoke out against leadership in Nazi Germany. It's my DUTY to vote and enforce my beliefs. But in no way am I obligated to accept anyone's presidency. I believe you should voice your opinion for you distaste of Clinton's leadership... I know I did.

Speak up, it's American to do so! :wink:

 

[mingez]

Mingez wrote:

....the President of the United States, (like it or not) is to convey confidence, arouse....

Oh yeah, President Clinton... :lol: :lol: :lol: JK

I just could not pass that one up

I agree with the fact that he didn't do his job as a figurehead. No puns please! :lol: :lol:

 

[mingez]

People like to toss around the statement that you can buy a degree. Anyone have any proof of that? Are you saying he didn't earn his degree, that he didn't even show up but just paid someone for his degree? Has anyone ever shown one small shred of proof the President Bush bought his degree? If not, let's stop making up accusations just to fit our arguments.

Well, personally, I'm not suggesting that he ACTUALLY bought his degree. What I meant by that is that his achievement isn't as pertinent because he:

Didn't have to work his way through college.
Work his way through highschool.
Apply for financial aid.
Get necessary funds by way of an academic scholarship. (nor did he need one)
Have to decide between Student Loan Debt, and where he should attend.
Buy his own books, with tips from a tip jar.
Support a family while in school.
I think you get the point.

Your average Joe hasn't the means he did. Did he get an education...yes. But I could have gotten into Harvard if my dad was a former President of the US, and I had a million dollars. Harvard isn't exactly a state school. Imagine what your grades would have been like had you not needed to pay bills in college!

When I was in college, as with most, I had to pay rent, utilities, buy food, etc, etc. I doubt he ever worried about such things. So, point is, study time is easy to come by if you aren't pulling a double shift at Red Lobster.
:wink:

 

[mingez]

Coolant Sensor? leaking

What you fail to realize Mingez, is that your opinions on him, his beleifs, and his policy are just that - YOUR opinions. They are not everyone else's or even the majority.

Oh I very much understand that. His beliefs, and his policies are a direct result of HIS (GW's) opinions. And your views are your opinions as well. And I respect that. The difference is, I don't want to make my opinions or beliefs into law. He is.

 

[90Xjay]

Mingez wrote:

I disagree.
It IS my patriotic duty to be critical of leadership if I feel they are wrong in some way...

No disagreement needed here, Re-read my post, You are within your rights to be critical, because you at least voted and you keep yourself informed. No argument from me :lol:

But in no way am I obligated to accept anyone's presidency

There is where you can paint yourself in a corner. If you don't accept that Bush is the president, you are ignoring reality. He is the president and only time will change that. That is a fact and it is not disputed. If you disagree with that fact, I can recomend some treatment facilities for you.
JK :lol:
Now if you meant that by "accepting" his presidency meant you have to back and support him, that is not the case either.
Like I said, I disliked Clinton, felt he was taking the country in the wrong direction, worked with some local people and with the rest of the nation, I was part of the movment that brought about the 104th Congress, that sent a message to Clinton. I did not like the situation, but accepted his presidency, not his policies and worked to change the outcome of the mid-term election.

That is why, when we are critical of a congressman or president or senator, we should also take action with our words and work for change. Even if a president is a bad one in your opionion, if enough people think like you do, you can vote him out in 4 years!!! 2 years for a congressman!!

If you are griping about who is in charge, I hope you also do something about it, get involved and try to make a honest difference. It all starts with being an informed voter.

This concludes my Civics course that no one asked for but I gave anyway.

Mingez, I really think we just needed to clarify some terms, I think we are understanding of each other. :wink:

 

[mingez]

Mingez, I really think we just needed to clarify some terms, I think we are understanding of each other.

Semantics are awesome. :lol:

 

[TwistedCU]

What you fail to realize Mingez, is that your opinions on him, his beleifs, and his policy are just that - YOUR opinions. They are not everyone else's or even the majority.

Oh I very much understand that. His beliefs, and his policies are a direct result of HIS (GW's) opinions. And your views are your opinions as well. And I respect that. The difference is, I don't want to make my opinions or beliefs into law. He is.

That is not at all true. You vote for a guy who supports your ideals and you expect him to support them. I do the same.

Example:

I happen to think that we need to hold the Pres to a higher standard. His ideals, and his desire to push his dreams of theocratic government are backwards and ridiculous and shining examples that his ignorance knows no bounds. Fundamentally unsound. The Hate Amendment" as unAmerican as it gets. "Liberty and justice for straight people?"

YOu believe in equal rights for homosexuals, at least that is what your post is indicating. Fine. That is your beleif, ideal. You stated you want a president who is held to a higher standard then go on to explain some of what that standard is in your eyes. Well I view what you believe to be a higher standard as simply your beliefs.

Your post clearly indicates that you would like a president (or any elected official) to govern according to your beliefs, as I would like them to uphold mine. There is absolutely no difference Mingez. We vote for what we believe is best for our country.

You cannot describe your ideals as the standard. Although both of us would like to believe that our ideals are the standard, with the large amounts of people on each side of the fence in our nation this is not true for either of us.

So the elections will be ugly for quite a while. One side will eventually become the stronger, then problems will arise and they will be doubted. Then the other will become dominant and the cycle will continue. It's been that way for a long time now. Right now it is the Republican's day in the sun. It will change, but only for a while. Cycle.

 

[mingez]

RE: Re: North and South

YOu believe in equal rights for homosexuals, at least that is what your post is indicating. Fine. That is your beleif, ideal.

No, I believe in liberty and justice for ALL. I believe homosexuals would be in the category of..."All." :wink: THat wasn't my idea, nor the idea of those that think like me. That was part of our culture of freedom far before my time. It's not MY standard.

Racists have rights too. My opinion is that they should be shot and hung, but to make that into law? Never. Extreme analogy, but you get the point.
I would, for example, never suggest that Christians not be allowed to marry. Nor would I suggest you not be able to reap the benefits of that union from a tax/law standpoint. In this case, I disagree with the ideals, yet would never burden them by taking away (or in the case of this arguement "granting") that right.

Of all people, you know, TC, that I understand your description of relative thinking (and Voting). I live by it. Relative thinking has usually been my argument to refute your arguements, so it's interesting you bring it up now. But there are certain areas where it's not a matter of opposing ideals, there's a line.

For example, the afore mentioned racist. He would vote a candidate such as David Duke into office if it were possible. Not that it would ever happen, but imagine that he and his supporters managed to popularize the notion of making African Americans a second-class citizen again. Or perhaps, legalize slavery. Should I just blow it off as a difference in ideals, stay silent, and hope the cycle will come around again, or should I protest the attrocity for what it is? It's ILLEGAL. Hasn't always been illegal, and we managed to evolve out of that dark-aged method of thinking (for the most part)

It's not that the person that believes blacks are second class citizens and should be hung has a "Differing veiw" or "Standard/Ideal" than I. Such behavior has been outlawed. Why do you think that is?

 

[mingez]

Body work

Differences in standards/ideals: Public nudity, cursing on TV, Censorship, Mooning, Teaching hindu in schools, burning the flag, adultery, deadbeat dads, capital punishment.

Examples of social and political attrocity: Slavery, aparthied, racial cleansing, women's sufferage (2nd class citizenry), segregation, and..the Hate amendment.

 

[Snitty]

RE: Warning Dial-Uppers COOL PICS

not to brag.. but my IQ is 4023

 

[TwistedCU]

YOu believe in equal rights for homosexuals, at least that is what your post is indicating. Fine. That is your beleif, ideal.

No, I believe in liberty and justice for ALL. I believe homosexuals would be in the category of..."All." :wink: THat wasn't my idea, nor the idea of those that think like me. That was part of our culture of freedom far before my time. It's not MY standard.

Racists have rights too. My opinion is that they should be shot and hung, but to make that into law? Never. Extreme analogy, but you get the point.
I would, for example, never suggest that Christians not be allowed to marry. Nor would I suggest you not be able to reap the benefits of that union from a tax/law standpoint. In this case, I disagree with the ideals, yet would never burden them by taking away (or in the case of this arguement "granting") that right.

Of all people, you know, TC, that I understand your description of relative thinking (and Voting). I live by it. Relative thinking has usually been my argument to refute your arguements, so it's interesting you bring it up now. But there are certain areas where it's not a matter of opposing ideals, there's a line.

For example, the afore mentioned racist. He would vote a candidate such as David Duke into office if it were possible. Not that it would ever happen, but imagine that he and his supporters managed to popularize the notion of making African Americans a second-class citizen again. Or perhaps, legalize slavery. Should I just blow it off as a difference in ideals, stay silent, and hope the cycle will come around again, or should I protest the attrocity for what it is? It's ILLEGAL. Hasn't always been illegal, and we managed to evolve out of that dark-aged method of thinking (for the most part)

It's not that the person that believes blacks are second class citizens and should be hung has a "Differing veiw" or "Standard/Ideal" than I. Such behavior has been outlawed. Why do you think that is?

I should have put "equal rights", in quotes.

How is anyone denied liberty in this case? Bush has stated he supports civil unions. He explained why he supports them, and also explained why they should not be called marriages (which have been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time). The majority of Americans agree with that and please don't ask for proof on that - I'm going on memory from the last election so if you don't believe it I'm okay with that (but it's true) . Personally I'm not even for civil unions and the fact that he supports them is a disapointment to me as he did it for no other reason but to try to win a few votes, but that's me. Living wills can take care of the legal issues and as for tax breaks, I'm still waiting for ours... can you show me where I'm missing mine??? Last I checked we were supposed to be working on the "marriage penalty". What they want is some legal angle to be "veiwed" as equal. To me they are equal as a human being but what they do is wrong, therefore I see no reason to extend to them some bogus law or amendment just so they may relish in yet another gay victory to make what they do seem more legitimate to them and to society. They have the same rights I do, as does any citizen in this country of ours.

Shoot and hang racists? For what, their beliefs alone? Had to ask... I could see if there was a crime, but no matter how ugly, thought and belief are no crime. It has not been outlawed to have a view of others as second rate, it is illegal to treat them as such or to discriminate against them - BIG difference Believe me I am no racist, but if we want to speak of liberty then lets do so across the entire spectrum.

If someone like David Duke were elected president, and tried to govern as to his beliefs then yes you should protest. I would too, but for that to happen (him being president) the majority would have to elect him and I would expect that is exactly what he would do. It is what they are supposed to do. Fortunately that will never happen (Duke).

I never said you shouldn't be upset about, or that you shouldn't protest against Bush if you disagree with him. For Pete's sakes Bill Clinton had me quite ticked off on many an occaision and you bet your arse I made it known just as has Bush at times, just look down at my sig! What I am saying is you should expect him or anyone else to be governing as they campaigned and portrayed themselves, like it or not. To see an elected official govern the way he promised to on the campaign trail is something I celebrate and I am surprised you think it is wrong. If they were all held accountable to govern the way they promise to we could really weed out the candidates and maybe get some very solid, good people in office.