PDA

View Full Version : Are you smarter than the President?


Logical
08-05-2007, 09:57 PM
I know this is a pretty low standard but I thought I would conduct a quiz.

ClevelandBronco
08-05-2007, 10:00 PM
False.

Uh, "C?"

Is there a quiz coming?

Are you smarter than a keyboard?

penchief
08-05-2007, 10:16 PM
If you want to use the "Don't Do It" test, I would have to honestly answer, "yes."

I can't count the number of times I've screamed to this administration, "Dont ****ing Do It! You're ****ing Up!" Only to have them do it and end up ****ing up, anyway.

But when I really think about it I ask myself, "how can I be smarter than the people that have maneuvered their way into the Presidency of the United States?" And I ultimately conclude that I cannot possibly be smarter so I end up fearing the worst; that all of their **** ups are not **** ups at all but are an intentional effort to weaken our country for their own eco-political purposes.

Logical
08-05-2007, 11:36 PM
If you want to use the "Don't Do It" test, I would have to honestly answer, "yes."

I can't count the number of times I've screamed to this administration, "Dont ****ing Do It! You're ****ing Up!" Only to have them do it and end up ****ing up, anyway.

But when I really think about it I ask myself, "how can I be smarter than the people that have maneuvered their way into the Presidency of the United States?" And I ultimately conclude that I cannot possibly be smarter so I end up fearing the worst; that all of their **** ups are not **** ups at all but are an intentional effort to weaken our country for their own eco-political purposes.That is even scarier than that I am actually smarter.

wazu
08-05-2007, 11:38 PM
Funny part is, my first thought was to wonder if this is a trick question.

jAZ
08-06-2007, 12:07 AM
I've said this before...

I think that Bush and I are about equals. That is to say that I can see how were I in his shoes, I'd struggle to execute the duties of President or Presiential candidate.

I know for a fact that I shouldn't be President. Neither should he.

The one difference is that he seems to be a better script-reader... I'd be more intellectually curious. We'd both rely upon others to read far too many things for us.

ChiefaRoo
08-06-2007, 12:17 AM
Why are you guys obsessing? W. is gone is 17 months. I hope two years from now this crap is going to be over and done with. This obsesssion is as bad as the one some Republicans had for Clinton. It does nothing for the country and doesn't add to the public discourse.

wazu
08-06-2007, 12:41 AM
Why are you guys obsessing? W. is gone is 17 months.

So? That's 17 more months of pain. 17 more months of Americans dying to defend some shitty piece of land halfway around the world while foreign nationals stream through our own nation's borders right here at home.

Obsess away. Sticking our heads in the sand isn't going to help.

ChiefaRoo
08-06-2007, 12:45 AM
So? That's 17 more months of pain. 17 more months of Americans dying to defend some shitty piece of land halfway around the world while foreign nationals stream through our own nation's borders right here at home.

Obsess away. Sticking our heads in the sand isn't going to help.

He's in charge. He's making the decisions with his cabinet and the Generals. He's leading. There is nothing anyone can do even if you want to quit your job and camp out in a ditch by his house in TX. I say thank god that's how our system works.

wazu
08-06-2007, 12:48 AM
He's in charge...There is nothing anyone can do...

What a ringing endorsement.

ChiefaRoo
08-06-2007, 12:52 AM
What a ringing endorsement.

I support what Bush is trying to do but that's not the point. He's the President. This is how our system works and this is why the founding fathers designed a Representative Republic instead of a direct democracy. All any of us can do is decide who we want to vote for in '08. Do you think I enjoyed watching Clinton's last 1.5 years? It'll all work out in the end Adam. Sit tight, go on vacation, have a beer. Chill baby.

KC Jones
08-06-2007, 07:26 AM
I support what Bush is trying to do but that's not the point. He's the President. This is how our system works and this is why the founding fathers designed a Representative Republic instead of a direct democracy.

If you pay close attention you will note that the Bush administration has worked very hard against what the founding fathers intended and provided for in the constitution. They believe in a huge, invasive, and all powerful executive branch that is not required to answer to congress and to some extent above the law. So keep supporting what Bush and company are trying to do, because the next time a democrat takes the oval office they will inherit a considerably more powerful and larger federal government than any president before Bush.

KC Jones
08-06-2007, 07:37 AM
But when I really think about it I ask myself, "how can I be smarter than the people that have maneuvered their way into the Presidency of the United States?" And I ultimately conclude that I cannot possibly be smarter so I end up fearing the worst; that all of their **** ups are not **** ups at all but are an intentional effort to weaken our country for their own eco-political purposes.

Bush didn't maneuver himself into jack squat - he's an empty suit and nothing more. He had the right last name and family connections as well as the charisma and 'good ole boy' image. Now if we had a poll about Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rove - I'd readily admit their intellectually superiority. As for all of the blunders and missteps - it's unlikely in my opinion that it's all part of a well organized plan rather than classic pride. The neo-conservatives thought so much of themselves and their plan to put America in sole control of the world's oil supply that they refused to listen to counter arguments (like those coming from Powell).

SBK
08-06-2007, 07:52 AM
Armchair Presidents unite!!!

Amnorix
08-06-2007, 07:57 AM
Why are you guys obsessing? W. is gone is 17 months. I hope two years from now this crap is going to be over and done with. This obsesssion is as bad as the one some Republicans had for Clinton. It does nothing for the country and doesn't add to the public discourse.

Because 8 years of damage to our international prestige etc. will linger for a really, REALLY long time.

Amnorix
08-06-2007, 08:00 AM
Bush didn't maneuver himself into jack squat - he's an empty suit and nothing more. He had the right last name and family connections as well as the charisma and 'good ole boy' image. Now if we had a poll about Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rove - I'd readily admit their intellectually superiority. As for all of the blunders and missteps - it's unlikely in my opinion that it's all part of a well organized plan rather than classic pride. The neo-conservatives thought so much of themselves and their plan to put America in sole control of the world's oil supply that they refused to listen to counter arguments (like those coming from Powell).

I'd agree on Cheney, plead that I don't know enough about Rove to agree or disagree (he might only be really good at ONE thing), and probably disagree on Rummy, but again, don't really know his background enough.


Unfortunately, smarter doesn't equal right or better for the PResidency. Truman was nobody's genius, but he was a great President. I'llt ake common sense over raw brainpower.

pikesome
08-06-2007, 08:12 AM
If you pay close attention you will note that the Bush administration has worked very hard against what the founding fathers intended and provided for in the constitution.


The entire Federal Government has done this since, at least, the New Deal and you could make a really good argument that it started with George Washington. Government grows government, it's been doing it since governments were invented.

penchief
08-06-2007, 08:30 AM
It does nothing for the country and doesn't add to the public discourse.

Blow Jobs don't have anything to do with running a country but starting unjust wars, illegal spying, torturing people, ignoring the law, depriving us of our privacy and eroding our civil liberties, and railroading justice do have something to do with running a country.

I can ignore someone I don't like but it's impossible to ignore the damage this presidency is inflicting on the United States. It will take years to recover from what they have done. Alas, I fear that some of it may be irreversible.

But let's keep digging that hole, anyway.

Cochise
08-06-2007, 08:43 AM
You should be a writer for the half hour news hour.

Dallas Chief
08-06-2007, 08:59 AM
Blow Jobs don't have anything to do with running a country but starting unjust wars, illegal spying, torturing people, ignoring the law, depriving us of our privacy and eroding our civil liberties, and railroading justice do have something to do with running a country.

I can ignore someone I don't like but it's impossible to ignore the damage this presidency is inflicting on the United States. It will take years to recover from what they have done. Alas, I fear that some of it may be irreversible.

But let's keep digging that hole, anyway.
Yeah, but lying about it and integrity do have something to do with running a country. I'll give you that your accusations of the current administration matter, whether they are accurate or not is open for debate.

Cochise
08-06-2007, 09:02 AM
Yeah, but lying about it and integrity do have something to do with running a country. I'll give you that your accusations of the current administration matter, whether they are accurate or not is open for debate.

That matter of perjury didn't matter, but many more contemporary ones do, I think you'll notice.

Dallas Chief
08-06-2007, 09:04 AM
Because 8 years of damage to our international prestige etc. will linger for a really, REALLY long time.
Do you really think that out international prestige is of paramount importance? Has it ever been? I think our elected representatives should do what is the best interest of our country, what Malaysia or Belgium think be damned. If it gives the rest of the world a warm and fuzzy, well that's great, if not, wait six months and something else will.

banyon
08-06-2007, 09:08 AM
I support what Bush is trying to do but that's not the point. He's the President. This is how our system works and this is why the founding fathers designed a Representative Republic instead of a direct democracy. All any of us can do is decide who we want to vote for in '08. Do you think I enjoyed watching Clinton's last 1.5 years? It'll all work out in the end Adam. Sit tight, go on vacation, have a beer. Chill baby.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."-TR

keg in kc
08-06-2007, 09:25 AM
Is this a rhetorical question?

(W responds by asking who "Rhett" is)

patteeu
08-06-2007, 09:30 AM
If you pay close attention you will note that the Bush administration has worked very hard against what the founding fathers intended and provided for in the constitution. They believe in a huge, invasive, and all powerful executive branch that is not required to answer to congress and to some extent above the law. So keep supporting what Bush and company are trying to do, because the next time a democrat takes the oval office they will inherit a considerably more powerful and larger federal government than any president before Bush.

Compared to what FDR and the democrats did to "what the founding fathers intended", Bush has been insignificant. There isn't a single democrat in the 2008 race who wants to return to anything close to what was "provided for in the constitution." Ron Paul is the only guy who comes close to that. And very few people who post on this board (including most of the Ron Paul supporters) would really want that.

pikesome
08-06-2007, 09:34 AM
Compared to what FDR and the democrats did to "what the founding fathers intended", Bush has been insignificant. There isn't a single democrat in the 2008 race who wants to return to anything close to what was "provided for in the constitution." Ron Paul is the only guy who comes close to that. And very few people who post on this board (including most of the Ron Paul supporters) would really want that.

DING DING DING

I'm not real big on the domestic security changes but the "going against the founding fathers" argument is pretty well worthless especially from a Democrat. What passes for a Republican today has no business using it either.

Cochise
08-06-2007, 09:40 AM
Compared to what FDR and the democrats did to "what the founding fathers intended", Bush has been insignificant. There isn't a single democrat in the 2008 race who wants to return to anything close to what was "provided for in the constitution." Ron Paul is the only guy who comes close to that. And very few people who post on this board (including most of the Ron Paul supporters) would really want that.

The way they are talking, you'd think that Bush had put hundreds of thousands of people in internment camps based solely on ethnicity.

BucEyedPea
08-06-2007, 09:48 AM
Compared to what FDR and the democrats did to "what the founding fathers intended", Bush has been insignificant.

Actually, they're pretty comparable even if they did things in different areas.

There isn't a single democrat in the 2008 race who wants to return to anything close to what was "provided for in the constitution." Ron Paul is the only guy who comes close to that. And very few people who post on this board (including most of the Ron Paul supporters) would really want that.

Ron Paul is also a gradualist ( supports the Fair Tax as an interim solution) and knows he can't implement all his ideas in one term. But the pressing issues of today, would be dealth with first, which is what 70% of Americans want. This is #1 the war, #2 immigration, health care costs (which are related to immigration too). #3 decline of the middle class. That's enough roll back of govt for most right now. We'd have a long way to go and it would take decades to get back to where Paul thinks we should be. We did not get into the state we'er in overnight.

The rest would be a matter of if people liked the results.

pikesome
08-06-2007, 09:50 AM
The way they are talking, you'd think that Bush had put hundreds of thousands of people in internment camps based solely on ethnicity.

Or he jailed people for complaining about the war.

BucEyedPea
08-06-2007, 09:54 AM
Or he jailed people for complaining about the war.
There are people in the GOP, like Newt Grinch, who wants to get rid of free speech during this war. That could come, especially if more attacks come here which Michael Sheuer ( former CIA chief of binLaden unit) which Sheuer says is coming despite the WH rhetoric and being in Iraq to fight them there.

If this is a "war that may never end" don't count this out. And don't forget, Bushies has been more subtle in stifling criticism. All the right wing think tanks, oops sorry, former right wing think-tanks, many newspapers and media outlets fired the paleo-cons who opposed the Iraq invasion. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

pikesome
08-06-2007, 09:59 AM
There are people in the GOP, like Newt Grinch, who wants to get rid of free speech during this war. That could come, especially if more attacks come here which Michael Sheuer ( former CIA chief of binLaden unit) which Sheuer says is coming despite the WH rhetoric and being in Iraq to fight them there.

If this is a "war that may never end" don't count this out. And don't forget, Bushies has been more subtle in stifling criticism. All the right wing think tanks, oops sorry, former right wing think-tanks, many newspapers and media outlets fired the paleo-cons who opposed the Iraq invasion. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.

It's still a long ways from having the Postmaster General read people's mail and then jailing them.

I'm not happy with a lot of the things being done but, like almost every other time, this idea that Bush is the worst flys in the face of the facts. It makes you wonder what schools teach today. It can't be US history pre-1993.

keg in kc
08-06-2007, 10:08 AM
Not only the worst president in the history of the US, but the worst president in the history of the word "president", in any nation in any era. He's made us the laughing stock of the world and it's going to take decades to undo the damage that has been done to this country, internationally and domestically. Let's just hope he doesn't declare himself a 3rd term.

StcChief
08-06-2007, 10:14 AM
Because 8 years of damage to our international prestige etc. will linger for a really, REALLY long time.
Since when do we need to care about the rest of PC Europe.

International prestige is myth.

Who comes to the aid of everybody in the world. Hurricanes, Typhoons, Earthquakes etc. It's not the UN (League of Nations) or any our "allies".

Amnorix
08-06-2007, 10:20 AM
Since when do we need to care about the rest of PC Europe.

International prestige is myth.

Who comes to the aid of everybody in the world. Hurricanes, Typhoons, Earthquakes etc. It's not the UN (League of Nations) or any our "allies".

Neither you nor I have any idea how much help we do/don't get from foreign governments when it comes to tracking terrorists or other enemies of our country, passing information back and forth between intelligence agencies, tracking the money the bad guys use to finance operations, etc. etc.

You can say f--- off world, but you need to understand that you need friends around the world to have any ability to control what goes on. The British Empire was the classic example of this -- hundreds of years of being able to reach into practically any part of the world.

If you think you can fight the Taliban and Al Queda without Pakistan, then great. If you think you can invade Iraq as easily without Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, then great. But you're a moron if so.

Friends are good. You need to keep your arrogance of American supremacy in check and remember that.

pikesome
08-06-2007, 10:29 AM
Not only the worst president in the history of the US, but the worst president in the history of the word "president", in any nation in any era. He's made us the laughing stock of the world and it's going to take decades to undo the damage that has been done to this country, internationally and domestically. Let's just hope he doesn't declare himself a 3rd term.

See this is the kind of stupid ass rhetoric that blinds people from fixing the problems. You lump all of the problems on Bush's shoulders without laying the blame on those who also deserve it. The law legitimizing the warrant-less wiretaps was passed by Congress. They approved the fighting in Iraq. They continue to approve the fighting. One of the Congressmen had cash in his freezer. Another built a bridge to nowhere. The Supreme Court expanded Eminent Domain. There's a lot of bad being done by many, many of our elected officials and party has little to do with it. They just demonize the other side while lining their own pockets.

Logical
08-06-2007, 11:08 AM
So no one wants to take my rather creative, no answer.;)

Cochise
08-06-2007, 11:13 AM
It makes you wonder what schools teach today. It can't be US history pre-1993.

Well, consider who's in charge of deciding what is taught.

keg in kc
08-06-2007, 11:15 AM
See this is the kind of stupid ass rhetoric that blinds people from fixing the problems. You lump all of the problems on Bush's shoulders without laying the blame on those who also deserve it. The law legitimizing the warrant-less wiretaps was passed by Congress. They approved the fighting in Iraq. They continue to approve the fighting. One of the Congressmen had cash in his freezer. Another built a bridge to nowhere. The Supreme Court expanded Eminent Domain. There's a lot of bad being done by many, many of our elected officials and party has little to do with it. They just demonize the other side while lining their own pockets.The culpability of others does not absolve the cretin in chief of responsibility.

Cochise
08-06-2007, 11:20 AM
The culpability of others does not absolve the cretin in chief of responsibility.

If you oppose a legislative action, and choose not to hold responsible the people in your party of choice who participated in that action, then you yourself are also culpable.

keg in kc
08-06-2007, 11:23 AM
If you oppose a legislative action, and choose not to hold responsible the people in your party of choice who participated in that action, then you yourself are also culpable.My party of choice is Independent.

You know, you don't have to be partisan to think W has the IQ of a lab rat with Down's Syndrome.

Taco John
08-06-2007, 11:57 AM
My party of choice is Independent.

You know, you don't have to be partisan to think W has the IQ of a lab rat with Down's Syndrome.



They try to paint anyone who thinks Bush is a dope as a radicalized leftist. What they fail to realize is that it's mainstream to think Bush is a dope, even if they really don't want it to be.

pikesome
08-06-2007, 12:00 PM
The culpability of others does not absolve the cretin in chief of responsibility.

Nor does it make him solely responsible. It's Congress's job to limit the Exec's power, if they aren't then they have to shoulder the blame too. At this point by listening to conversations without a warrant the Exec branch is doing their job. It's especially bad that all Congress seems to be able to do is go on and on about how bad he is then turn right around a pass something like this. Two-faced and incompetent.

StcChief
08-06-2007, 12:18 PM
Neither you nor I have any idea how much help we do/don't get from foreign governments when it comes to tracking terrorists or other enemies of our country, passing information back and forth between intelligence agencies, tracking the money the bad guys use to finance operations, etc. etc.

You can say f--- off world, but you need to understand that you need friends around the world to have any ability to control what goes on. The British Empire was the classic example of this -- hundreds of years of being able to reach into practically any part of the world.

If you think you can fight the Taliban and Al Queda without Pakistan, then great. If you think you can invade Iraq as easily without Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, then great. But you're a moron if so.

Friends are good. You need to keep your arrogance of American supremacy in check and remember that.
The back scratching should work both ways.. Some how it does when convenient for them.

The run up to the war is further proof that disrupting the EU/Russian business with Saddam was more important than terrorists.....

We do have some allies in the world not sure how much trust to give them. Saudi/Kuwait/Pakistan seem to be "afraid" of Taliban/AlQueda
as they enjoy their Status in Arab world.

Europe sees the advantage of working with us to find terrorists now that they have been HIT in Spain/U.K., germans find them in Hamburg, but where are they when it comes to fighting, funding?
Frenchies have their own muslim problems brewing.

America tends to walk softly and carry a big stick. Now that 9/11 has come the big stick is out.
You can call it supremecy or the world's problem fixer.

The folks around the world that scream the loudest have the most political capital to lose.

The world is either for or against eliminating the sh1t disturbers, hell bent on destruction of what they don't believe.

Comparing US to British empire is a stretch.

Baby Lee
08-06-2007, 12:25 PM
Are you smarter than the President?

Raw intelligence, yes. But not many are smarter than me. :p

Fishpicker
08-06-2007, 12:41 PM
I dont think there is a single person on this BB that is actually smarter than the president. Those that think they are smarter than Bush are mistaken. President Bush is a Knight of Eulogia.

Deberg_1990
08-06-2007, 01:49 PM
IM sure there are plenty here smarter than him...

But none of them have access to the information he has and can make informed decisions based off that info like he can.

CHIEF4EVER
08-06-2007, 02:59 PM
My dick is smarter than President Bush. This is the same guy who wants to 'rid the world of evil'. Maybe he ought to set his sights a bit lower and focus on something a bit simpler first. How about winning a game of Scrabble against ANYONE in his cabinet? I swear, every time I hear him speak about national defense, and he says New-cue-ler I cringe in embarrassment.

Calcountry
08-06-2007, 05:18 PM
Why are you guys obsessing? W. is gone is 17 months. I hope two years from now this crap is going to be over and done with. This obsesssion is as bad as the one some Republicans had for Clinton. It does nothing for the country and doesn't add to the public discourse.If Hillary wins, it will only be the beginning, of the end that is.

Calcountry
08-06-2007, 06:01 PM
He's in charge. He's making the decisions with his cabinet and the Generals. He's leading. There is nothing anyone can do even if you want to quit your job and camp out in a ditch by his house in TX. I say thank god that's how our system works.The Bra burner and the Human Nose could call for impeachment hearings.


Didn't I say the Dubai Ports thing was going to lead to Bush's impeachement if he lost the H.R. by thumbing his nose at the conservatives that put him in office?

You reap what you sew W.

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 06:07 PM
The Bra burner and the Human Nose could call for impeachment hearings.


Didn't I say the Dubai Ports thing was going to lead to Bush's impeachement if he lost the H.R. by thumbing his nose at the conservatives that put him in office?

You reap what you sow W.

I think the immigration fiasco has done far more damage than the Dubai Ports issue.

Yes, folks reap what they sow.

morphius
08-06-2007, 06:08 PM
Obviously I'm not, he will be done working for the rest of his life after this gig, have his own home security and great medical for the rest of his life.

Ill be working till I'm run over by a manure spreader or something equally pathetic.

a1na2
08-06-2007, 06:14 PM
:rolleyes:

Adept Havelock
08-06-2007, 06:27 PM
They try to paint anyone who thinks Bush is a dope as a radicalized leftist.

Good point. IMO, it's died down quite a bit (at least here in DC) since folks like Chief4ever and Iowanian have stated their own opinions on how Dubya's handled Iraq.

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 06:32 PM
Obviously I'm not, he will be done working for the rest of his life after this gig, have his own home security and great medical for the rest of his life.

Ill be working till I'm run over by a manure spreader or something equally pathetic.

At least you'll have your dignity. And Chiefsplanet.com of course.

Hydrae
08-06-2007, 07:34 PM
Not only the worst president in the history of the US, but the worst president in the history of the word "president", in any nation in any era. He's made us the laughing stock of the world and it's going to take decades to undo the damage that has been done to this country, internationally and domestically. Let's just hope he doesn't declare himself a 3rd term.


Stop it! I try not to let those thoughts come to the forefront so I can sleep at night.

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 07:48 PM
A 3rd term is thankfully, not possible. That's something we can thank the Republican party for.

go bowe
08-06-2007, 07:59 PM
:rolleyes:wow, that was the best post that i've ever seen from you...

the best evar!!!!!1!!1!

keep up the good work, tommy boy...

keep up the good work...

patteeu
08-06-2007, 09:53 PM
If I were a betting man, I'd take G W Bush over each of the people who answered "Hell Yes" and I suspect I'd be right more often than I'd be wrong.

mlyonsd
08-06-2007, 09:55 PM
If I were a betting man, I'd take G W Bush over each of the people who answered "Hell Yes" and I suspect I'd be right more often than I'd be wrong.

I'd like to see how the Hell Yes crowd would answer after having to protect 300 million people for the last 6 years.

Logical
08-06-2007, 09:58 PM
I'd like to see how the Hell Yes crowd would answer after having to protect 300 million people for the last 6 years.I bet at least 90% of us would be smart enough to be moving a large number of the troops out of Iraq and putting them to more useful purpose.

banyon
08-06-2007, 09:58 PM
I'd like to see how the Hell Yes crowd would answer after having to protect 300 million people for the last 6 years.
Would I have the resources of the world's most powerful military and largest intel agencies and advisory agencies to do it?

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 09:59 PM
Our Savior George W. Bush.

mlyonsd
08-06-2007, 10:01 PM
I bet at least 90% of us would be smart enough to be moving a large number of the troops out of Iraq and putting them to more useful purpose.

Maybe so, but that doesn't necessarily make you smarter. It would be your call though.

mlyonsd
08-06-2007, 10:03 PM
Would I have the resources of the world's most powerful military and largest intel agencies and advisory agencies to do it?

Of course. But don't forget the WH underground pool is gone, they put the new press corp digs on top of it.

And don't forget, you could always fly around on AF One.

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 10:03 PM
Would I have the resources of the world's most powerful military and largest intel agencies and advisory agencies to do it?

Are you doubting the superhero powers of George the Great?

banyon
08-06-2007, 10:21 PM
Of course. But don't forget the WH underground pool is gone, they put the new press corp digs on top of it.

And don't forget, you could always fly around on AF One.

I would feel pretty good about it then. Of course our intel and military is so good that a chimp has adequate data and expertise to act on.

mlyonsd
08-06-2007, 10:25 PM
I would feel pretty good about it then. Of course our intel and military is so good that a chimp has adequate data and expertise to act on.

I'm thinking if you had 300 million people to protect you might not be so cavalier. Especially when you were forced to consider your decisions would have ramifications 10, 20, 30 years from now and you couldn't act on opinion polls.

Well, you could I suppose but that might not mean you were taking the job serious.

banyon
08-06-2007, 10:46 PM
I'm thinking if you had 300 million people to protect you might not be so cavalier. Especially when you were forced to consider your decisions would have ramifications 10, 20, 30 years from now and you couldn't act on opinion polls.

Well, you could I suppose but that might not mean you were taking the job serious.

I'm not sure that our current leader meets the standard you are attempting to hold me to.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:07 PM
15/22 "Claim" to be 'smarter' than a guy who has an IQ in the top 2% or so of the population.....well, I guess...that goes to show how self-delusional a bunch of internet discussion board geeks are.... :rolleyes:

Honestly, the dude is 130 Stanford-Binet....which is much "ABOVE" average, despite our board's self-delusions. :shake:

FTR, I'm one of the few who actually qualify as, at least, in the same ball park as....the pretenders from this silly discussion board.

:banghead:

Jim, you really....seriously....need to get a life. :(

Logical
08-06-2007, 11:13 PM
15/22 "Claim" to be 'smarter' than a guy who has an IQ in the top 2% or so of the population.....well, I guess...that goes to show how self-delusional a bunch of internet discussion board geeks are.... :rolleyes:

Honestly, the dude is 130 Stanford-Binet....which is much "ABOVE" average, despite our board's self-delusions. :shake:

FTR, I'm one of the few who actually qualify as, at least, in the same ball park as....the pretenders from this silly discussion board.

:banghead:

Jim, you really....seriously....need to get a life. :(
Even if what you say about his IQ is true, that does not measure his intellect just his ability to learn. I think many of us who rated ourselves smarter have absorbed more knowledge and definitely appear to have more common sense than GW has shown.

By the way I would bet that besides you, me, banyon, Ammorix, C4E, Mark M and TJ might have as high or higher IQs

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:14 PM
Why would anyone claim they are not smarter than George W. Bush?

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:17 PM
Even if what you say about his IQ is true, that does not measure his intellect just his ability to learn. I think many of us who rated ourselves smarter have absorbed more knowledge and definitely appear to have more common sense than GW has shown.

His IQ is in the top 2% and above range; I guarantee, the 15 or so respondents who've claimed to be superior....less than half actually would be....and of the other half...."common sense" is a much more subjective matter than you are granting.

Grow-up, Jimbo. :rolleyes:

Why would anyone claim they are not smarter than George W. Bush?

Because they are stupid enough to buy the meida's presentation of "W." as less than.....smart.

:shrug:

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:17 PM
Honestly, the dude is 130 Stanford-Binet....which is much "ABOVE" average, despite our board's self-delusions. :shake:

Could we get a source for that? I've seen a few projections of his IQ score, ranging from lower than 120 to as high as 138.

Logical
08-06-2007, 11:23 PM
Could we get a source for that? I've seen a few projections of his IQ score, ranging from lower than 120 to as high as 138.

I agree let's see the source, link please.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:24 PM
Could we get a source for that? I've seen a few projections of his IQ score, ranging from lower than 120 to as high as 138.

I've sourced it before....if you want to do it again, you use our crappy "Search" function for the next 30-45 minutes to figure it out. I won't.

I've done it. You've tacitly, admitted as much....his IQ (for 130 and above) would qualify in the top 2% of population in the U.S.

FTR, consider that Wilson, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton were our "smartest" Presidents in the 20th Century....which tells you something about the "importance" of IQ, versus Leadership Ability....doesn't it??? :hmmm:


;)

I agree let's see the source, link please.

You go right ahead; I've posted it here in D.C. before....I won't waste my time with our pathetic "Search" function.

You, go ahead.....and be my guest, though. :rolleyes:

Logical
08-06-2007, 11:26 PM
Truthfully I would be more interested in his SAT results. I know I would put my 1520 up against his score.

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:27 PM
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous2.html

This site shows GWB having a 125, and Madonna having a 140, and Sharon Stone having a 154. Which leads me to be a bit skeptical when it comes to these sorts of things.

Logical
08-06-2007, 11:28 PM
I've sourced it before....if you want to do it again, you use our crappy "Search" function for the next 30-45 minutes to figure it out. I won't.

I've done it. You've tacitly, admitted as much....his IQ (for 130 and above) would qualify in the top 2% of population in the U.S.

FTR, consider that Wilson, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton were our "smartest" Presidents in the 20th Century....which tells you something about the "importance" of IQ, versus Leadership Ability....doesn't it??? :hmmm:


;)



You go right ahead; I've posted it here in D.C. before....I won't waste my time with our pathetic "Search" function.

You, go ahead.....and be my guest, though. :rolleyes:If you give me something I can search on I will be happy to do it. But it has to be more than three letters or numbers. So what can I search on.

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:28 PM
Truthfully I would be more interested in his SAT results. I know I would put my 1520 up against his score.

1206.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:29 PM
Truthfully I would be more interested in his SAT results. I know I would put my 1520 up against his score.

That may be true. That doesn't negate HIS top 2%... :shrug:

Nor my 1540....Butthead. :p

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:30 PM
1206.

Those bogus scores have been refuted, NUMEROUS times.

MoveOn.org and Salon.com "scores"....imagine that. ROFL

Logical
08-06-2007, 11:31 PM
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous2.html

This site shows GWB having a 125, and Madonna having a 140, and Sharon Stone having a 154. Which leads me to be a bit skeptical when it comes to these sorts of things.I was a little suprised to see Kotter say a 130 is in the top 2%, I had always heard it took a 142 or greater to be in that classification. This is why I wanted a source as well. A 130 is decent but not outstanding.

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:32 PM
Those bogus scores have been refuted, NUMEROUS times.

MoveOn.org and Salon.com "scores"....imagine that. ROFL

566 verbal and 640 math says cnn.com. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/

I assumed they checked their facts. What is it more like then?

stevieray
08-06-2007, 11:33 PM
what a joke...most of the people here can't go one day without screwing off at work, let alone run the country.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:36 PM
566 verbal and 640 math says cnn.com. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/

I assumed they checked their facts. What is it more like then?

Were "OFFICIAL scores" disclosed there?

Personally, you have made a bad assumption....on your part, ASAICS.

Or was it mere speculation by a partisan motivated hacks?

I'll accept the latter, personally.... :hmmm:

Taco John
08-06-2007, 11:38 PM
what a joke...most of the people here can't go one day without screwing off at work, let alone run the country.



What does screwing off at work have to do with how smart a person is?

CHIEF4EVER
08-06-2007, 11:39 PM
Were "OFFICIAL scores" disclosed there?

Or was it mere speculation by a partisan motivated hacks?

I'll accept the latter, personally.... :hmmm:

I wonder what Dubya's Verbal score was. Anyone who is a Yale grad and says Nu-cue-ler instead of Nuclear is suspect IMHO.

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:40 PM
Were "OFFICIAL scores" disclosed there?

Personally, you have made a bad assumption....on your part, ASAICS.

Or was it mere speculation by a partisan motivated hacks?

I'll accept the latter, personally.... :hmmm:

http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:41 PM
http://2004.georgewbush.org/images/bios/transcript.jpg

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:41 PM
I wonder what Dubya's Verbal score was. Anyone who is a Yale grad and says Nu-cue-ler instead of Nuclear is suspect IMHO.

Perhaps...if he was not a Southerner.... :hmmm:

As a fellow Southerner, I heard what he said; but, unlike you, I knew what he meant. ;)

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:43 PM
Were "OFFICIAL scores" disclosed there?

Personally, you have made a bad assumption....on your part, ASAICS.

Or was it mere speculation by a partisan motivated hacks?

I'll accept the latter, personally.... :hmmm:

Hmm, what does ASAICS mean? And what's so bogus about these scores? Who refuted them now?

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:44 PM
By the way I would bet that besides you, me, banyon, Ammorix, C4E, Mark M and TJ might have as high or higher IQs

Hey what about me guys! :harumph:

BucEyedPea
08-06-2007, 11:44 PM
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous2.html

This site shows GWB having a 125, and Madonna having a 140, and Sharon Stone having a 154. Which leads me to be a bit skeptical when it comes to these sorts of things.
Sharon Stone is known for her high IQ. She was a geek in school...and wouldn't even go play during recess but stayed inside reading books. She started college full-time at age 15.

CHIEF4EVER
08-06-2007, 11:45 PM
Perhaps...if he was not a Southerner.... :hmmm:

As a fellow Southerner, I heard what he said; but, unlike you, I knew what he meant. ;)

C'mon Kotter, I grew up in SW Missouri. In the rural Ozarks. My hometown is as hick as it gets and even WE don't enunciate THAT poorly. At least not the educated among us. When the leader of the free world talks like that, he makes us all look like a bunch of uneducated dumbasses. At least admit that.

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:47 PM
Sharon Stone is known for her high IQ. She was a geek in school...and wouldn't even go play during recess but stayed inside reading books. She started college full-time at age 15.

I thought she was known for her bad movies. Ahem, so yeah, I uh, totally think they underrated her in this study.

ClevelandBronco
08-06-2007, 11:48 PM
Sharon Stone is known for her high IQ. She was a geek in school...and wouldn't even go play during recess but stayed inside reading books. She started college full-time at age 15.

Everyone needs to know someone who has kept up her subscription to People Magazine.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:49 PM
566 verbal and 640 math says cnn.com. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/

I assumed they checked their facts. What is it more like then?

You do realize....a 566 verbal, though perhaps below yours and mine on the SAT, DOES put him in the "above 'PhD & M.D.' and VERY Superior category" according to most analyses of SAT scores....


http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm


C'mon Kotter, I grew up in SW Missouri. In the rural Ozarks. My hometown is as hick as it gets and even WE don't enunciate THAT poorly. At least not the educated among us. When the leader of the free world talks like that, he makes us all look like a bunch of uneducated dumbasses. At least admit that.

I attribute it to bad advice from his "advisors"....to appeal to Average Joe and Joe Sixpack. :shrug:

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:51 PM
You do realize....a 566 verbal, though perhaps below yours and mine on the SAT, DOES put him in the "above 'PhD & M.D.' and VERY Superior category" according to most analyses of SAT scores....


http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm

Not that it matters, though, right? Afterall, that is SOO not his score, and has been refuted by reliable sources many times.

Logical
08-06-2007, 11:52 PM
That may be true. That doesn't negate HIS top 2%... :shrug:

Nor my 1540....Butthead. :pNice score, what year? Mine was in 1971 was yours after they adjusted the scores?

BucEyedPea
08-06-2007, 11:52 PM
I think there are different kinds of intelligence and skills.
I never come up well on math but I come up high on creativity.
Can leadership be tested?

And why is very high intelligence required in a good leader. I'd take a balance of enough intelligence to do the job coupled with sanity. Who want's a brilliant meglomaniac, better they not capable of pulling anything off. There's such a thing as having people smarts,street smarts and judging character too.

Besides, in our system, the way it's supposed to work, you only have to be incredibly smart if you want to run every area in the country, everyone's life and too many countries of the world. I mean just get out of the fuggin' way and let the people get on with it...what's so hard about that? :harumph:

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:53 PM
Not that it matters, though, right? Afterall, that is SOO not his score, and has been refuted by reliable sources many times.

All I've said it's top 2%....YOU cited the 566 YOURSELF. From YOUR sources....


and that's the ONLY point I've made. And I've effectively refuted your diversions.

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:53 PM
Nice score, what year? Mine was in 1971 was yours after they adjusted the scores?


1981....BEFORE the adjustments.

Butthead. ;)

BucEyedPea
08-06-2007, 11:54 PM
Everyone needs to know someone who has kept up her subscription to People Magazine.
Ha! Ha! Actually, I googled intelligent actresses one night for fun. Actually, I was checking Sigourney Weaver's intelligence as I heard she was real smart but wasn't sure it was her.

A number of them came up. Natalie Portman is another and speaks several languages fluently as well.

Only buy People about 4 times a year. But I'm a sucker for Princess Diana books and gossip.

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:54 PM
Those bogus scores have been refuted, NUMEROUS times.

MoveOn.org and Salon.com "scores"....imagine that. ROFL

"All I've said it's top 2%....

and that's the ONLY point I've made. And I've effectively refuted your diversions."

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:55 PM
Were "OFFICIAL scores" disclosed there?

Personally, you have made a bad assumption....on your part, ASAICS.

Or was it mere speculation by a partisan motivated hacks?

I'll accept the latter, personally.... :hmmm:

:hmmm:

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:57 PM
I got to wonder, how can George W. Bush get a 1206, and Mr. Kotter get a 1540?

So you got almost 800 in both categories? Or you're a genius in math and great in verbal? Or vice versa?

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:57 PM
:hmmm:

YOU cited the 566 for verbal; that puts him top 2%....read the charts I cited, and weep.

ROFL

Mr. Kotter
08-06-2007, 11:59 PM
I got to wonder, how can George W. Bush get a 1206, and Mr. Kotter get a 1540?

So you got almost 800 in both categories? Or you're a genius in math and great in verbal? Or vice versa?

If I'd grown up as a the son of a Connecticut Senator....I'd probably be in my 2nd or 3rd term in Congress, man. Instead I grew up as the poor white son of George Jefferson in a housing project in the KC area.

:)

Jenson71
08-06-2007, 11:59 PM
YOU cited the 566 for verbal; that puts him top 2%....read the charts I cited, and weep.

ROFL

Answer this, Mr. Kotter. Is 1206 a bogus "moveon.org" score, as you claim?

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:00 AM
If I'd grown up as a the son of a Connecticut Senator....I'd probably be in my 2nd or 3rd term in Congress, man.

:)

Where'd you go to college?

Logical
08-07-2007, 12:00 AM
You do realize....a 566 verbal, though perhaps below yours and mine on the SAT, DOES put him in the "above 'PhD & M.D.' and VERY Superior category" according to most analyses of SAT scores....


http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm



...Dude you are whack, I am by far and away no genius and scored a perfect 800 on the verbal and a 720 on the math. While GW was scoring 566 verbal and 640 math, those scores are pitiful and would indeed put him down with Joe sixpack.

CHIEF4EVER
08-07-2007, 12:01 AM
I think there are different kinds of intelligence and skills.
Can leadership be tested?

And why is very high intelligence required in a good leader. I'd take a balance of enough intelligence to do the job coupled with sanity. Who was a brilliant meglomaniac, better they not capable of pulling anything off. There's such a thing as having people smarts,street smarts and judging character too.

Besides, in our system, the way it's supposed to work, you only have to be incredibly smart if you want to run every area in the country, everyone's life and too many countries of the world. I mean just get out of the fuggin' way and let the people get on with it...what's so hard about that? :harumph:
There was once a guy who was the son of a lowly postmaster, didn't do well in school, failed miserably as an artist and served in the Army as a Corporal in WW1. He failed to get promoted above corporal because of illogical outbursts in front of his superiors. He was jailed after the war for a failed (and ill advised) coup attempt. A short time later, this very same man wrote a book and later became the unquestioned leader of his country as a result of his oratory (which was second to none) and his ability to appeal to the desires and fears of his people.






His name was Adolf Hitler.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:01 AM
Classic Planet pwnage



Rrrrooooccckkkkk Ccccchhhhaallllllllkkkkkk, Jjjjjjjaaaayyyyyhhhhhawwwwkkkk....
KKKKKKKKKKKkkkkkkkkkkUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuu

RRrooocckk Ccchhaalllllkkk, Jjjaayhhhawkkk....
KKKKKkkkkkkkUUUUuuuuuuuuu.....

RRrockk Ccchhlllkkk, Jjayhawkk....
KKKkkk-UUuuuuuuu.....

RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!
RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!
ROCKCHALK JAYHAWK, KKK-UUUU!!!



Go Baby Jays!

:KU:

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:02 AM
Dude you are whack, I am by far and away no genius and scored a perfect 800 on the verbal and a 720 on the math. While GW was scoring 566 verbal and 640 math, those scores are pitiful and would indeed put him down with Joe sixpack.

Then you are Picasso with words....

but, apparently, you lack understanding of standardized test scoring differentials.

http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm

Logical
08-07-2007, 12:03 AM
There was once a guy who was the son of a lowly postmaster, didn't do well in school, and served in the Army as a Corporal in WW1. He failed to get promoted above corporal because of illogical outbursts in front of his superiors. He was jailed after the war for a failed (and ill advised) coup attempt. A short time later, this very same man wrote a book and later became the unquestioned leader of his country as a result of his oratory (which was second to none) and his ability to appeal to the desires and fears of his people.






His name was Adolf Hitler.Well once the story said oratory skills we all knew it was not GW.;)

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:05 AM
Answer this, Mr. Kotter. Is 1206 a bogus "moveon.org" score, as you claim?

CHIEF4EVER
08-07-2007, 12:06 AM
Well once the story said oratory skills we all knew it was not GW.;)

LMAO

True, but can you see the point I was making?

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:06 AM
I wonder how high Kotter's SAT score was for the "backing out of lost arguements" section.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:07 AM
Jens...

YOU refute the 566 verbal being VERY SUPERIOR....and then, maybe, I'll think about wasting MY time persuing your red herring.

Otherwise, go fly a kite. :shake:

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:08 AM
Jens...

YOU refute the 566 verbal being VERY SUPERIOR....and then, maybe, I'll think about wasting MY time persuing your red herring.

Otherwise, go fly a kite. :shake:

It hurts, doesn't it?

Logical
08-07-2007, 12:09 AM
Then you are Picasso with words....

http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm
Well maybe I was, I no longer use my extensive vocabulary here on Chiefsplanet for all the shit I took for it in the early years. But you can ask some of the oldtimers about it.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:09 AM
It hurts, doesn't it?

Not at all.

At my age, you learn not to waste your time with bullshit. ;)

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:11 AM
Not at all.

At my age, you learn not to waste your time with bullshit. ;)

So, about that 1206 score being fake, I wonder who started that lie anyway?

CHIEF4EVER
08-07-2007, 12:11 AM
Guys, wait, PLEASE. Give me 5 minutes to pop some popcorn in the microwave. I don't want to miss a second of this.............

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:12 AM
Well maybe I was, I no longer use my extensive vocabulary here on Chiefsplanet for all the shit I took for it in the early years. But you can ask some of the oldtimers about it.

I remember from the Star Discussion Board; you have chilled.

On the other hand, while you slept with Webster or Merriam under your pillow as a kid, I slept with Road Atlases and Sports Almanacs under MINE. We are merely birds of a different feather.


Consider that a compliment. ;)

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:13 AM
So, about that 1206 score being fake, I wonder who started that lie anyway?

It's an ESTIMATED score....

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:13 AM
Those bogus scores have been refuted, NUMEROUS times.

MoveOn.org and Salon.com "scores"....imagine that. ROFL

BTW, when you get the chance, could you drop us some links that show the score being refuted?

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:14 AM
It's an ESTIMATED score....

Oh, wait, so the transcript is fake?

CHIEF4EVER
08-07-2007, 12:15 AM
I remember from the Star Discussion Board; you have chilled.

On the other hand, while you slept with Webster or Merriam under your pillow as a kid, I slept with Road Atlases and Sports Almanacs under MINE. We are merely birds of a different feather.


Consider that a compliment. ;)

The old KC Star discussion board. Back when Packfudge would troll the board telling us how great Ron Wolf was in comparison to Carl Peterson and how we sucked.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2007, 12:16 AM
There was once a guy who was the son of a lowly postmaster, didn't do well in school, failed miserably as an artist and served in the Army as a Corporal in WW1. He failed to get promoted above corporal because of illogical outbursts in front of his superiors. He was jailed after the war for a failed (and ill advised) coup attempt. A short time later, this very same man wrote a book and later became the unquestioned leader of his country as a result of his oratory (which was second to none) and his ability to appeal to the desires and fears of his people.






His name was Adolf Hitler.
Interesting. But then some who don't do well in school are not necessarily stupid. Some are smarter than the rest but have other problems. Sometimes psychological. I recall some of Hilter's art. It was pretty good. If I recall correctly he had an inferiority complex and feel apart at the slightest criticism of his work. Just gave up. Maybe that's why he failed.

But I know what'cha mean. I had a boyfriend once, who was a genious with a 160 IQ. He was violent and nuts and beat me up a few times. One day he knocked some sense into me when I finally left.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:17 AM
Oh, wait, so the transcript is fake?

Follow the "link" yourself....to discover your folly. ;)

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:18 AM
The old KC Star discussion board. Back when Packfudge would troll the board telling us how great Ron Wolf was in comparison to Carl Peterson and how we sucked.

I wasn't Kotter in those days; I wasn't even SDChiefsfan.....I don't remember, because I was a "lurker" in those days.....heh. :)

BucEyedPea
08-07-2007, 12:18 AM
Then you are Picasso with words....

Hey what's wrong with Picasso. He was a creative genious!
:(

Logical
08-07-2007, 12:19 AM
Then you are Picasso with words....

but, apparently, you lack understanding of standardized test scoring differentials.

http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iq.htm



Unless you can prove that GW took the Wechsler's Measure and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence test then you are full of shit. On the Stanford Binet scale a 125 WAIS is equivelent to a 139.

I don't think I trust that website anyway, it says the average person is going to score only a 340 verbal and I have never known anyone to score less than 400.

ClevelandBronco
08-07-2007, 12:20 AM
No. I'm not smarter.

Neither are you, or we'd be bitching about your performance as president.

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:22 AM
Follow the "link" yourself....to discover your folly. ;)

Were you in a car accident after you took your 1540 SAT?

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:23 AM
Follow the "link" yourself....to discover your folly. ;)

The transcript is real, right Mr. Kotter?

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:25 AM
Unless you can prove that GW took the Wechsler's Measure and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence test then you are full of shit. On the Stanford Binet scale a 125 WAIS is equivelent to a 139.

I don't think I trust that website anyway, it says the average person is going to score only a 340 verbal and I have never known anyone to score less than 400.

Then, you VASTLY overestimate the abilities of "average" Americans, then....the COLLEGE BOARD (itself, the organization which designs and administers both the SAT and ACT) is the "source" for those stats.

You are just, purely and simply, WRONG...then. And refuse to admit it.

A 566 verbal on the SAT, according to those charts (which are clearly reliable, given the souce,) clearly puts him above 98% of the American population.

Alas, but you have difficulty reading charts..... :shake:

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:27 AM
The transcript is real, right Mr. Kotter?

No, it's not....and if you follow the link, you will see it is NOT. :rolleyes:

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:28 AM
A 566 verbal on the SAT, according to those charts (which are clearly reliable, given the souce,) clearly puts him above 98% of the American population.

But since a 566 is a BOGUS score, it's more like...well, what, Mr. Kotter?

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:34 AM
But since a 566 is a BOGUS score, it's more like...well, what, Mr. Kotter?

I don't KNOW what his score was....neither does anyone else. Confidentiality laws being what they are, and all....to MY knowledge HE hasn't authorized their "release."

What you fail to see, is someone has created a "link" to his "official website for 2004" with NO links from the actual "homepage" to "link" you to "OFFICIAL" information....

In other words, YOU have been had, again, by cyber-propagandists who are pretty sneaky and compelling...to the naive and inexperienced folks, who can't see through their manipulations of cyberspace webpages.... ;)

TRY to access that page from the page which PURPORTS to be the "homepage."

You can't do it.... :)

Logical
08-07-2007, 12:40 AM
Then, you VASTLY overestimate the abilities of "average" Americans, then....the COLLEGE BOARD (itself, the organization which designs and administers both the SAT and ACT) is the "source" for those stats.

You are just, purely and simply, WRONG...then. And refuse to admit it.

A 566 verbal on the SAT, according to those charts (which are clearly reliable, given the souce,) clearly puts him above 98% of the American population.

Alas, but you have difficulty reading charts..... :shake:I again call bullshit this is from the SAT website.

SAT scores are reported on a scale from 200 to 800, with additional subscores reported for the essay (ranging from 2-12) and for multiple-choice writing questions (on a 20-to-80 scale). Your scores tell college admissions staff how you did compared with other students who took the test. For example, if you scored close to the mean or average—about 500 on SAT critical reading and 500 on SAT mathematics—admissions staff would know that you scored as well as about half of the students who took the test nationally. http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/scores/understanding.html

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:40 AM
I don't KNOW what his score was....neither does anyone else. Confidentiality laws being what they are, and all....to MY knowledge HE hasn't authorized their "release."

What you fail to see, is someone has created a "link" to his "official website for 2004" with NO links from the actual "homepage" to "link" you to "OFFICIAL" information....

In other words, YOU have been had, again, by cyber-propagandists who are pretty sneaky and compelling...to the naive and inexperienced folks, who can't see through their manipulations of cyberspace webpages.... ;)

TRY to access that page from the page which PURPORTS to be the "homepage."

You can't do it.... :)

Um, you do realize what we're debating over being official is the transcript and not the website right?

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:42 AM
Um, you do realize what we're debating over being official is the transcript and not the website right?

I'll make it simple for you:

Is this his OFFICIAL Transcript, or not?

If not, you have to ask yourself....what is my motivation for believing that it is, EVEN WHEN IT LIKELY IS NOT.

:hmmm:

I again call bullshit this is from the SAT website.

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/scores/understanding.html

You are confusing, PRE-revisionist scoring with POST-revisionist scoring in the changes in the scoring of the test, which you yourself (rightly, I might add) pointed out earlier in the thread.

Come on, Jim....keep up. ;)

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:46 AM
I'll make it simple for you:

Is this his OFFICIAL Transcript, or not?

If not, you have to ask yourself....what is my motivation for believing that it is, EVEN WHEN IT LIKELY IS NOT.

:hmmm:

What makes you think it's not when all sources indicate the transcript was given to the New Yorker in 1999 and this is it?

I think it is.

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:47 AM
BTW, when will we get all the links that refute this BOGUS score?

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:47 AM
What makes you think it's not when all sources indicate the transcript was given to the New Yorker in 1999 and this is it?

I think it is.

Then, you IMO....my friend, are naive...beyond belief. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:49 AM
BTW, when will we get all the links that refute this BOGUS score?

I've done the search; YOU do it this time....as is well-known, the Search Engine here....sucks shit. :banghead:

Be my guest; I've done my homework....it's your turn, apparently. :shake:

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:50 AM
Then, you IMO....my friend, are naive...beyond belief. :shake:

Um, we're all still waiting for your sources that refute everything.

Don't give me this I've got nothing so I'll just pretend to be smarter than thou bullshit, you coward. How do you sleep with yourself at night?

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:51 AM
I've done the search; YOU do it this time....as is well-known, the Search Engine here....sucks shit. :banghead:

Be my guest; I've done my homework....it's your turn, apparently. :shake:

In other words, you've got nothing. That's pathetic.

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:52 AM
It's amazing that out of all the sites that have refuted the transcript, Kotter can't find one (because he has to go through chiefsplanet?) and he can't even give us a close guess as to what the refutes said in opposition.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:52 AM
In other words, you've got nothing. You're pathetic.

No. As an aspiring teacher, you'll appreciate this one day...

"You can lead a horse to water, but....don't become his bitch by letting him make you do his work for him."

:evil:

It's amazing that out of all the sites that have refuted the transcript, Kotter can't find one (because he has to go through chiefsplanet?) and he can't even give us a close guess as to what the refutes said in opposition.

Refuting a negative??? :spock:

You failed Logic class too; that, or got a gentleman's "D" I take it? ... :shake:

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:56 AM
Mr. Kotter, I don't think you're a pathetic person. I apologize for writing that. I think you're a decent guy, but as for this topic, you're dead wrong and dead ugly about it the whole way through, with your backtracks and avoidances.

Logical
08-07-2007, 12:57 AM
I'll make it simple for you:

Is this his OFFICIAL Transcript, or not?

If not, you have to ask yourself....what is my motivation for believing that it is, EVEN WHEN IT LIKELY IS NOT.

:hmmm:



You are confusing, PRE-revisionist scoring with POST-revisionist scoring in the changes in the scoring of the test, which you yourself (rightly, I might add) pointed out earlier in the thread.

Come on, Jim....keep up. ;)So you think Bush took the test after the revisions in the scoring, come on Rob. Yes they recentered the scoring but not as radically as it would take to make that 566 a top 2% on an 800 scale. Think about it.

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 12:58 AM
Refuting a negative??? :spock:

You failed Logic class too; that, or got a gentleman's "D" I take it? ... :shake:

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 12:59 AM
Mr. Kotter, I don't think you're a pathetic person. I apologize for writing that. I think you're a decent guy, but as for this topic, you're dead wrong and dead ugly about it the whole way through, with your backtracks and avoidances.

I've done the research; and it is YOU who is wrong. Period.

I'm unwilling to do you "research" and "leg-work" for you? That's pathetic? No. That's what any reasonable person would do. I don't have the time or desire, when I already KNOW better. Do your homework, fella.

YOU come back with OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS released by the Bush camp themselves....and then we can talk; otherwise, we are reduced to considering partisan motivated smears. Is that what you really want to do?

:shake:

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 01:02 AM
I've done the research; and it is YOU who is wrong. Period.

I'm unwilling to do you "research" and "leg-work" for you? That's pathetic? No. That's what any reasonable person would do. I don't have the time or desire, when I already KNOW better. Do your homework, fella.

YOU come back with OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS released by the Bush camp themselves....and then we can talk; otherwise, we are reduced to considering partisan motivated smears. Is that what you really want to do?

:shake:

I've laid everything out for you with things I've found. Find a site that refutes the 1206 score. You said there were some. You said that number was BOGUS.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 01:04 AM
I've laid everything out for you with things I've found. Find a site that refutes the 1206 score. You said there were some. You said that number was BOGUS.

Why would I take time to refute an obviously Bogus claim? :rolleyes:

So you think Bush took the test after the revisions in the scoring, come on Rob. Yes they recentered the scoring but not as radically as it would take to make that 566 a top 2% on an 800 scale. Think about it.

YOU are quoting a College Board site from 2007, which uses the current scoring method.....NOT the one when W. took the test. I'm telling you; you don't understand test norming, especially 1970s test norming if you think it's unlikely that a 566 could be top 2%--especially back then. You should "think about it."

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 01:08 AM
Why would I take time to refute an obviously Bogus claim? :rolleyes:

Sheesus, do you regret all the research you did then to know that everything I've said is wrong?

You can't find a link can you, Mr. Kotter? The transcript is true, right? 1206 is not bogus.

Logical
08-07-2007, 01:10 AM
Well nite all.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 01:12 AM
Sheesus, do you regret all the research you did then to know that everything I've said is wrong?

You can't find a link can you, Mr. Kotter? The transcript is true, right? 1206 is not bogus.

The transcript is a bogus plant by partisan motivated sources.

And YOU have yet to prove otherwise. I'll check to see if you'll bother to do your homework tomorrow....of if you are like so many Education majors, and chose the easy way out....but just floating to the path of least resistance.

You, like Zach, are a good egg; you just need to stop letting "influential" people and folks in your life do your thinking for you.

Think for yourself. ;)

Night, Jimbo; night all.

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 01:14 AM
The transcript is a bogus plant by partisan motivated sources.

And YOU have yet to prove otherwise. I'll check to see if you'll bother to do your homework tomorrow....of if you are like so many Education majors, and chose the easy way out....but just floating to the path of least resistence.

You, like Zach, are a good egg; you just need to stop letting "influencial" people and folks in your life do your thinking for you.

Think for yourself. ;)

Night, Jimbo; night all.

Find me a link, Mr, Kotter, that refutes 1206. Until then, you are dead to me.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 01:16 AM
Find me a link, Mr, Kotter, that refutes 1206. Until then, you are dead to me.

Think about it, Jens: in thirty years....when YOUR SAT score appears on the internet....we can all asssume that the 598 that is reported is accurate, right?

Is that what you really want to say???

Night, Jens. ;)

Braincase
08-07-2007, 06:19 AM
Knowing where I have scored on several IQ tests, I think it is safe to say my tested IQ is higher than most, including several presidents listed on the celebs page. In the case of a President, however, I think the more important quality is Wisdom, rather than Intellect. On that front, I think I exceed the POTUS as well.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2007, 06:46 AM
Knowing where I have scored on several IQ tests, I think it is safe to say my tested IQ is higher than most, including several presidents listed on the celebs page. In the case of a President, however, I think the more important quality is Wisdom, rather than Intellect. On that front, I think I exceed the POTUS as well.
:thumb:

Your wisdom score is higher than most too.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2007, 07:29 AM
I will say this Osama binLaden, or rather his right-hand man ZAyman al-Zawahiri ( I believe the CIA consider him the mastermind behind BL) is smarter than Bush. Since hiding out in Pakistan, an ally country was a brilliant move for them.

Now what about Cheney's IQ, wisdom level, leadership or sanity?
Afterall, fp was turned over to him and he's running that show.

patteeu
08-07-2007, 08:08 AM
Were you in a car accident after you took your 1540 SAT?

I suspect he had a head on collision with Logical. ;)

Nightwish
08-07-2007, 08:19 AM
But when I really think about it I ask myself, "how can I be smarter than the people that have maneuvered their way into the Presidency of the United States?" And I ultimately conclude that I cannot possibly be smarter so I end up fearing the worst
The president doesn't necessarily have to be very smart to accomplish that, as long as the people who are working behind the scenes are smart enough. Bush was the face of a very smooth, very impressive propaganda machine, but I doubt that Bush himself had much to do with it beyond doing what he was told to do and saying what he was told to say when he was told to do so.

As to the original question, I don't know. I know what my IQ is, but I don't know what his is. He's not a genius, I'm pretty sure, nor is he a complete moron. He's not very wise, but wisdom is different than intelligence. I would like to think I would have been wiser than he has been, but hindsight is 20/20. Would I have had the foresight to know that the neocons who were behind my "successes" would turn out to be as evil and corrupt as they are, before it was too late to extricate myself from them? I don't know.

Nightwish
08-07-2007, 08:45 AM
http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/famous2.html

This site shows GWB having a 125, and Madonna having a 140, and Sharon Stone having a 154. Which leads me to be a bit skeptical when it comes to these sorts of things.
If that's accurate, then I'm above Bush, at 136. I would love to know how they came up with a score for Plato, as I'm pretty sure the test for IQ wasn't developed until long after he was dust.

Nightwish
08-07-2007, 09:13 AM
Could we get a source for that? I've seen a few projections of his IQ score, ranging from lower than 120 to as high as 138.
That's something you have to be extremely careful of. I'm not sure where Kotter is getting his Stanford-Binet number from, since Bush never took the Stanford-Binet test, unless it is based on the same thing that most Bush IQ estimations are based on - imperfect correlations between Bush's SAT score and various IQ testing models. Generally, these correlations are considered very unreliable, as they tend to be based on the known IQ's of a sample of SAT-takers who scored in various ranges on the SAT. But the SAT (and similar tests, such as the ACT, which is what I took), employ completely different testing methods and test for completely different things than the IQ tests. For the most part, professionals look at such SAT-to-IQ conversions as a novelty.

I have a tested IQ of 136. I scored a 29 on the ACT, which is pretty good (I've never taken the SAT, though I would like to just to see how I would score). My brother scored a 33 (36, I believe, is a perfect score) on the ACT, and in the mid 1500s on the SAT, and has a tested IQ of 124. I went to school with a girl who was something of a savant, with the musical gift of "perfect pitch" (you could just tell her, "Sing me a C," without playing the note first, and she would find it without a hitch every time). Her tested IQ was 115 (a mean of three different IQ tests she was given). She scored a perfect 36 on the ACT, and 2360 (2400 is perfect) on the SAT.

Mr. Kotter
08-07-2007, 09:54 AM
I suspect he had a head on collision with Logical. ;)

FTR, I was only trying to one-up the Evil Mastermind....I took the ACT, not the SAT. I don't know what the "equivalent" SAT score would have been....I only know my percentile rank on the ACT (and the MAT too, I guess.) :shrug:

:p

Jenson71
08-07-2007, 09:57 AM
FTR, I was only trying to one-up the Evil Mastermind....I took the ACT, not the SAT. I don't know what the "equivalent" SAT score would have been....I only know my percentile rank on the ACT (and the MAT too, I guess.) :shrug:

:p

Hah!

Scaga
08-07-2007, 10:21 AM
My dog is smarter than President Bush....
And he speaks better too.

Nightwish
08-07-2007, 10:29 AM
FTR, I was only trying to one-up the Evil Mastermind....I took the ACT, not the SAT. I don't know what the "equivalent" SAT score would have been....I only know my percentile rank on the ACT (and the MAT too, I guess.) :shrug:

:pBy the way, where are you getting that a 566 Verbal is in the 98+ percentile? I found a few different percentile charts, from the 1960s and from today, and none of them show a 566 verbal being nearly that high. In the 1960s, a 566 verbal would have been around the 92nd-93rd percentile (or lower, depending on which cohort he belonged to), and now it appears to fall at about the 89th-90th percentile. Still not bad, but not vastly superior.

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/sat1966.html

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/sat.html

Pitt Gorilla
08-07-2007, 12:16 PM
Refuting a negative??? :spock:

You failed Logic class too; that, or got a gentleman's "D" I take it? ... :shake:What are you suggesting here?

Logical
08-07-2007, 01:45 PM
That's something you have to be extremely careful of. I'm not sure where Kotter is getting his Stanford-Binet number from, since Bush never took the Stanford-Binet test, unless it is based on the same thing that most Bush IQ estimations are based on - imperfect correlations between Bush's SAT score and various IQ testing models. Generally, these correlations are considered very unreliable, as they tend to be based on the known IQ's of a sample of SAT-takers who scored in various ranges on the SAT. But the SAT (and similar tests, such as the ACT, which is what I took), employ completely different testing methods and test for completely different things than the IQ tests. For the most part, professionals look at such SAT-to-IQ conversions as a novelty.

I have a tested IQ of 136. I scored a 29 on the ACT, which is pretty good (I've never taken the SAT, though I would like to just to see how I would score). My brother scored a 33 (36, I believe, is a perfect score) on the ACT, and in the mid 1500s on the SAT, and has a tested IQ of 124. I went to school with a girl who was something of a savant, with the musical gift of "perfect pitch" (you could just tell her, "Sing me a C," without playing the note first, and she would find it without a hitch every time). Her tested IQ was 115 (a mean of three different IQ tests she was given). She scored a perfect 36 on the ACT, and 2360 (2400 is perfect) on the SAT.Maybe on SAT II but not on the SAT 1600 is a perfect score on the SAT.

Logical
08-07-2007, 01:51 PM
Find me a link, Mr, Kotter, that refutes 1206. Until then, you are dead to me.
CNN has it at 1206

It wasn't because of his life experience--prosperous family, fancy prep school--which was all too familiar at Yale. It wasn't his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep.affirm.action.tm/

Logical
08-07-2007, 02:09 PM
I could not find Bush's IQ anywhere on the net. But I did find this interesting tidbit.

No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176.

StcChief
08-07-2007, 02:12 PM
I could not find Bush's IQ anywhere on the net. But I did find this interesting tidbit.
Carter. 176 I have my doubts on that.... 70 points too high

Adept Havelock
08-07-2007, 02:21 PM
Carter. 176 I have my doubts on that.... 70 points too high

I seriously doubt that.

Admiral Rickover never picked dummies to run his reactors, especially folks on the command path. Graduating 59th out of 820 at Canoe U ain't too shabby either. Certainly shows a bit more than a C+ at Yale, IMO.

That said, there's a clear difference between intelligence and wisdom as has been noted earlier. He had the former in abundance, but his idealism precluded the latter IMO. Which of course led to a disaster of a presidency.

But it's easier to just call him a dummy....

HolmeZz
08-07-2007, 02:36 PM
I haven't fully kept up with the arguments, but a 1200 SAT(on the old test) is not a bad score(though you definitely couldn't get into Yale on that alone). I think there are plenty of ways of showing Bush is a moron, but that wouldn't be one.

Nightwish
08-07-2007, 06:45 PM
Maybe on SAT II but not on the SAT 1600 is a perfect score on the SAT.
I'm not sure which one, but it was probably the SAT II that she took. My brother took both tests when he graduated in 1987. Melinda took the ACT when we graduated in 1985, but didn't take the SAT until sometime in the 90s when she decided to go back to school.