1
   

The Failed Presidency.

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 04:02 am
Italgato wrote:
When I asked Diddie whether he knew what the Harvard MBA program was like, he did not answer. I can only assume he did not know.


You should not assume.

However, if you insist on doing so, you should assume that I am not going to read or respond to much of anything you type. Smile

Now then, for every one who enjoys a chuckle, take a look at Dubya's Hotmail Inbox. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 08:22 am
Snope's article on Bush's IQ (tested at 95):

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 08:27 am
95 Isn't that somewhere between moron and I spelled my name correctly.Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 08:28 am
Italgato wrote:
When I asked Diddie whether he knew what the Harvard MBA program was like, he did not answer. I can only assume he did not know.


Gato, I asked you a question on another thread: perhaps you missed it:
joefromchicago wrote:
Italgato wrote:
I feel obliged to point out that the following are not "sentiments"( feelings, opinion and/or emotions) but rather facts which can be substantiated.

l. Harvard Business School was considered the best of all Business Schools when President Bush attended.

How do you substantiate this claim? Where's your proof?

You never answered this question. Can I, then, assume that you don't know the answer?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 08:51 am
Lightwizard wrote:
Snope's article on Bush's IQ (tested at 95):

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Didn't read the article all the way, huh?
in it, Snopes wrote:
As obvious as this joke was, at least two publications were taken in by it: The [London] Guardian and the New Zealand Southland Times. Both ran the "Presidential I.Q." tale as a factual item (on 19 July and 7 August 2001 respectively). The Associated Press publicized The Guardian's error on 12 August, moving The Guardian to post a retraction on 14 August, and U.S. News & World Report clearly reported the I.Q. item as a hoax on 20 August, 2001.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 09:40 am
No, I read it all -- just left it up to anyone to discover that there is no factual material reporting Bush's IQ as bait. I don't really care what his IQ is or that factually he was a Cee student (something he has attested to himself). His leadership and administrative ability, not to mention his poor communication skills, are possibly why one would think him a moron as a politician. His handlers are experts in spin control, not for hiding womanizing but for hiding his ineptness as a leader.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 09:42 am
(Benjamin Franklin was a notorious womanizer).
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 09:52 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(
Quote:
Benjamin Franklin was a notorious womanizer).

So what?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 09:54 am
Hey, that Doonsbury link doesn't work! ;(
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 09:55 am
So, that's not a viable reason to judge anyone's leadership ability.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 09:55 am
I thimk that's the point au Smile

Apparently, many have decided that a stupid leader (sic) deserves the same conclusion ....
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 11:38 am
The snopes article is so old that the Doonesbury cartoon is likely no longer archived (they end up in his books). However, since the 95 IQ has never been verified (which doesn't make it fabricated necessarily), I would think this is a non-issue. Those who take SAT tests are not required to take any standardized IQ test and those tests can vary -- a college professor once told me you have to take many tests over a period of years and then average them out.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 11:39 am
BTW, Franklin wasn't the only womanizer and adulterer amongst our forefathers and could drink most of the others under the table.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 11:43 am
Shocked
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 02:08 pm
Jefferson was a party guy, too. I imagine just his documented extracurricular pursuits would have disqualified him conclusively from the electoral arena of today.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 02:15 pm
JFK was no slouch in that department either. Considering the accomplishments of these people maybe it should be a requisite for presidential office. Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 02:23 pm
It seems some people must learn to differentiate between job performance and everything else of a personal nature. That's the only logical way to compare apples to apples.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 02:37 pm
Jefferson's initiation of the first university in the U.S. (and it was free, mind you) exonerated him in my book from anything including screwing his sheep.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 02:41 pm
I understand he only did ewes.

The guy was straight.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2003 02:43 pm
Didn't I see him in a Woody Allen movie?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 12:32:35