1
   

Bush a Genius Says NY Times

 
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 05:51 pm
Hi ya'all, I'm a newbie and a bit intimidated by the brilliant chit-chat but I may as well get my "feet wet" by adding a bit to the "Lovenstein Institute" Presidential IQ hoax.


The following is from the New York Times which most of you seem to think is a reliable source:

PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:02 am Post subject: Bush scored higher than Kerry on officer exam Reply with quote
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html

Secret Weapon for Bush?
By JOHN TIERNEY

Published: October 24, 2004


To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.

That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about 10 points lower than Al Gore's.

Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.

Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.

Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in "Doonesbury," that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.

You might expect Kerry campaign officials, who have worried that their candidate's intellectual image turns off voters, to quickly rush out a commercial trumpeting these new results, but for some reason they seem to be resisting the temptation.

Upon hearing of their candidate's score, Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the senator, said merely: "The true test is not where you start out in life, but what you do with those God-given talents. John Kerry's 40 years of public service puts him in the top percentile on that measure."

Lola
If I may point out, an IQ in the mid 120's is considerably above average........and I apologize if this has already been mentioned. I confess I did not take the time to read more that the first and last of this thread
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 06:08 pm
Thank you, rayban, for an excellent and informative post, and welcome to our happy, little family.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 07:02 pm
Too bad Bush, the "genius," couldn't explain himself out of a rathole regarding SS and what he would do about it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-16-gop-townhalls_x.htm?csp=34

Boy, Just when ya think you've heard it all on able2know... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 07:29 pm
Thanks Brandon

A2K appears to be the best internet vehicle for debate that I have yet found..........I'm still a bit intimidated by the "In your face" style of many participants.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Mar, 2005 08:44 pm
rayban, Welcome to a2k. The "in your face" happens when opinions are offered that are either illogical or without much to support it. Otherwise, it's very entertaining and educational - if you keep an open mind. I've been challenged often by people much smarter, but I keep offering my .02c anyways...
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 05:33 am
Yes good post rayban and welcome.

I quote from your article:-

"Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in "Doonesbury," that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91..."


That high eh? No wonder it was soon exposed as a hoax.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:35 am
Welcome, welcome Rayban1. Strap on your bullet proof vest, dust off your BS detector, and wade right in with the rest of us.

The 'in your face' syndrome here is not as bad as some other sites, but even here there are some among the clueless, ignorant, immature, and hateful who think personal insults make themselves look more informed or intelligent. They seem to be unaware of how hurtful or how disruptive to the discussion these can be, or they don't care. If you are supportive of the president or tilt right of center you'll probably be targeted now and then, but don't let it get to you.

And a good opening post it was too. I'm just finishing up Sammons' book, "Misunderestimated" re GWB and it is amazing how on target it is.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 09:40 am
This has to be the prize post of the day Smile

Quote:
Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 11:31 am
Thanks for the welcome and the warning Foxfyre. I confess that I have been reading this forum for several weeks before I decided to jump into the fray. I crave discussing politics and it will be a real challenge to "keep my cool" in the face of lies, distortions, and ad homenims
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 11:33 am
rayban, From your last post, I think you'll do fine.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 11:41 am
Welcome, rayban1.

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/wave.gif
(Notice how he's tilting to the right?)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 11:58 am
I'm posting this in a couple of places because it is pertinent to both. Normally I dislike long, tedious posts, but this one is so on target for this thread I'm going to post it anyway. (The Washington Post archives its articles after a few days.)

Excerpt (article in its entirety below.)
Quote:
. . . .When a Le Monde editorial titled "Arab Spring" acknowledges "the merit of George W. Bush," when the cover headline of London's The Independent is "Was Bush Right After All?" and when a column in Der Spiegel asks "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" you know that something radical has happened. . . .


. . . .The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.

Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.



Washington Post
What's Left? Shame.
By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A23

At his news conference on Wednesday, President Bush declined an invitation to claim vindication for his policy of spreading democracy in the Middle East. After two years of attacks on him as a historical illiterate pursuing the childish fantasy of Middle East democracy, he was entitled to claim a bit of credit. Yet he declined, partly out of modesty (as with Ronald Reagan, one of the secrets of his political success) and partly because he has learned the perils of declaring any mission accomplished.
The democracy project is, of course, just beginning. We do not yet know whether the Middle East today is Europe 1989 or Europe 1848. In 1989 we saw the swift collapse of the Soviet empire; in 1848 there was a flowering of liberal revolutions throughout Europe that, within a short time, were all suppressed.

Nonetheless, 1848 did presage the coming of the liberal idea throughout Europe. (By 1871, it had been restored to France, for example.) It marked a turning point from which there was no going back. The Arab Spring of 2005 will be noted by history as a similar turning point for the Arab world.

We do not yet know, however, whether this initial flourishing of democracy will succeed. The Syrian and Iraqi Baathists, their jihadist allies, and the various regional autocrats are quite determined to suppress it. But we do know one thing: Those who claimed, with great certainty, that Arabs are an exception to the human tendency toward freedom, that they live in a stunted and distorted culture that makes them love their chains -- and that the notion the United States could help trigger a democratic revolution by militarily deposing their oppressors was a fantasy -- have been proved wrong.

As an advocate of that notion of democratic revolution, I am not surprised that the opposing view was proved false. I am surprised only that it was proved false so quickly -- that the voters in Iraq, the people of Lebanon, the women of Kuwait, the followers of Ayman Nour in Egypt would rise so eagerly at the first breaking of the dictatorial "stability" they had so long experienced (and we had so long supported) to claim their democratic rights.

This amazing display has prompted a wave of soul-searching. When a Le Monde editorial titled "Arab Spring" acknowledges "the merit of George W. Bush," when the cover headline of London's The Independent is "Was Bush Right After All?" and when a column in Der Spiegel asks "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" you know that something radical has happened.

It is not just that the ramparts of Euro-snobbery have been breached. Iraq and, more broadly, the Bush doctrine were always more than a purely intellectual matter. The left's patronizing, quasi-colonialist view of the benighted Arabs was not just analytically incorrect. It was morally bankrupt, too.

After all, going back at least to the Spanish Civil War, the left has always prided itself on being the great international champion of freedom and human rights. And yet, when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, gassing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability.

A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile Gen. Augusto Pinochet eight years after he's left office, and becomes a human rights hero -- a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone. Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing -- Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria and, until yesterday, Hussein and his sons -- nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed, virulent hostility to America's courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.

The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel -- an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.

Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45508-2005Mar17.html
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 05:06 am
Thought I'd revive this thread with an apt quotation I saw in another thread:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you
may know him by this sign, that the dunces are
all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:44 am
Let's see; Bush wants to keep an individual alive that doesn't have any cognition left, but wants to make sure to reduce the social security safety net for people that lives long. Genius all right!
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:50 am
why, you can just tell by looking at him how brilliant he is........

And all us dunces thought we were smart.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:52 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Let's see; Bush wants to keep an individual alive that doesn't have any cognition left, but wants to make sure to reduce the social security safety net for people that lives long. Genius all right!

I presume you mean "people who live a long time," or "people whose lives are long."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:59 am
Lola wrote:
why, you can just tell by looking at him how brilliant he is........

And all us dunces thought we were smart.

I know, I know. And another apt quote on the subject of Bush's critics and the folly of trying to respond to their perpetual bleating:

"Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain."

--"The Maid of Orleans." Act iii. Sc. 6.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 11:17 am
"By Charles Krauthammer "
Smile
silly name, silly article
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 01:49 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lola wrote:
why, you can just tell by looking at him how brilliant he is........

And all us dunces thought we were smart.

I know, I know. And another apt quote on the subject of Bush's critics and the folly of trying to respond to their perpetual bleating:

"Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain."

--"The Maid of Orleans." Act iii. Sc. 6.


Here's another fine example of technique for us to study. Notice the use of the unflattering word "bleating." As if we're all sheep. Very good Brandon. You deserve a congratulations.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 02:07 pm
Lola wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lola wrote:
why, you can just tell by looking at him how brilliant he is........

And all us dunces thought we were smart.

I know, I know. And another apt quote on the subject of Bush's critics and the folly of trying to respond to their perpetual bleating:

"Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain."

--"The Maid of Orleans." Act iii. Sc. 6.


Here's another fine example of technique for us to study. Notice the use of the unflattering word "bleating." As if we're all sheep. Very good Brandon. You deserve a congratulations.

Oh, strictly routine. All in a day's work you know, but thanks.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/27/2021 at 03:18:48