Nope... and its his ideas are what I hate and show he is average.I think you just framed the argument for the ‘pro “Bush is stupid” people.’ If you “hate” his ideas – he is therefore “average.” I suppose that it follows that everyone who likes one of his “ideas” - that you hate - must also be “average.” Look - I felt the same way whenever Clinton’s grinning two-face looked at me from the TV. I just couldn’t understand why everyone else didn’t see the same double-faced looks I saw in the guy — I figured they were just all lambs before a wolf –
As already stated - if you don’t llike a guy you’ll “see” lots of reasons to support of that conclusion –
Revtim:
Quite frankly, no. I don’t recall Reagan getting approval from anyone regarding his bombing of Libya in 1986, just to give one example.
(Of course, in the middle of the Cold War, people saw enemies all around and also saw the USSR as a “balancing” superpower, so getting UN approval was not considered a necessity. Now, much of Western Europe is more scared of America than it is of America’s enemies. It’ll probably take an airplane flying into the Eiffel Tower might change their minds.)
And even if the answer were “yes”, that’s a far cry from what you said, “What good is being intelligent if your intelligent ideas cannot be expressed adequately?” As long as they can be expressed adequately enough for implementation, there is much good in being intelligent.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Colin Powell is an excellent speaker, and he’s the guy who actually made the final bid to the UN. Remember? I don’t think Reagan would’ve had any more success.
Look, I know that speaking ability is not the only sign of intelligence. My father wasn’t really a speaker, but he was a very intelligent man. He could read or create an electrical schematic with ease. But he couldn’t put that intelligence into words readily. The funny thing was, the Air Force at one point had him teaching computer science and although I’m sure he knew computer science cold, I’m also sure he wasn’t very good at teaching it. Because when he tried to teach ME electronics, his method consisted of repeating what he was trying to teach me over and over, punctuated by staring at me in disbelief because I couldn’t grasp what was so obvious to me. “The capacitor modulates the resistor by a factor indicated by the color banding on the side of the capacitor. Capacitance is a measure of its ability to store current.” Stare. “The capacitor modulates the resistor by a factor indicated by the color banding on the side of the resistor. Capacitance is a measure of its ability to store current.” Stare …
I stared back at him, but it was more of blank stare than a disbelieving one.
Anyhow, I can see how Bush might have some intelligence that’s not verbal, except there’s no proof of it. Put my father in front of a schematic and you’d find out pretty quick that he could concentrate and figure things out very efficiently. But there’s NOTHING in Bush’s behavior that indicates he can do anything but drink, snort Coke and have forceful opinions. And yeah, I think his test scores were probably handed to him on a platter at Yale. Sorry to besmirch that Ivy League institution, but they’ve been making jokes about “gentleman’s Cs” and “legacy students” in Ivy League schools for a very long time.
Show me the money if you want me to think Bush is smart. So far, ya got nothin’.
An SAT composite score that correlates, as pointed out above, to an IQ of 129, and people still think the guy is dumb… because he is considered a poor speaker.
Thomas Jefferson was not just considered a poor speaker, he was a poor speaker. Google up “Jefferson… poor speaker”. In fact, DON’T do that; I’ve done the work for you.
Another president springs to mind in this context. This one was not only poorly dressed, but worse yet, according to historian Thomas A. Bailey, “had a piercing, high-pitched voice and was often ill at ease when he began to speak.” The poor yokel had not even BEEN to college, and was sneered at as a “Simple Susan”, the “Illinois Ape” and " the Gorilla". Need I specify further?
I sincerely wonder how many of those who knock Bush’s intelligence can point to superior intellectual credentials of their own.
Evil Captor posted
Ummm – Well the OP isn’t about making you think “Bush is smart” – nor is it whether Bush is just “average” – as stated in an earlier post. And now there seems to be a shift in position taking place – In fact, the original poster, tommyw, takes the position that “Bush is stupid” - and he goes on to say that some objective evidence would go to show that he isn’t and states — “ An IQ score would do.” Oh what tangled webs we weave!
Sorry, but it appears you are resorting to stuff that seems ‘freshly made up’ in support your position –a statement like “I think his scores were probably handed to him on a platter at Yale.” just doesn’t go anywhere. But - if IT IS all “gentleman Cs” and “legacy students” - Bush still managed better Ivy League scores than the other guy -Al Gore — this despite Gore being Bush’s ‘intellectual superior’ (well according to the media). Bush’s intellectual better than went on to flunk / dropped out of grad school. Gore managed 5 Fs in one semester – heavy course load!! After which - Al dropped out of law school. Add this to what was said about Thomas Jefferson’s alleged “speaking ability” and me thinks there is an elephant in the living room.
I think you have it backwards. The assertion is that Bush is stupid. It is incumbent on the Bush-bashers to demonstrate that assertion with hard facts. One need not prove that Bush is smart to counter the statement that he is “stupid”. So far, I don’t believe that anyone has come up with any objective data to support the “stupid” argument.
Evil Captor posted
Ummm – Well the OP isn’t about making you think “Bush is smart” – nor is it whether Bush is just “average” – as stated in an earlier post. And now there seems to be a shift in position taking place – In fact, the original poster, tommyw, takes the position that “Bush is stupid” - and he goes on to say that some objective evidence would go to show that he isn’t and states — “ An IQ score would do.” Oh what tangled webs we weave!
Sorry, but it appears you are resorting to stuff that seems ‘freshly made up’ in support your position –a statement like “I think his scores were probably handed to him on a platter at Yale.” just doesn’t go anywhere. But - if IT IS all “gentleman Cs” and “legacy students” - Bush still managed better Ivy League scores than the other guy -Al Gore — this despite Gore being Bush’s ‘intellectual superior’ (well according to the media). Bush’s intellectual better than went on to flunk / dropped out of grad school. Gore managed 5 Fs in one semester – heavy course load!! After which - Al dropped out of law school. Add this to what was posted about Thomas Jefferson’s alleged “speaking ability” and me thinks there is an elephant in the living room.
It’s very interesting that Bush’s Harvard and Yale grades were handed to him because of his family connections (supposedly), but no one brings up Gore’s or Kennedy’s. Don’t forget that both their fathers were extremely influential.
Apparently, some people honstly think that if one cannot prove that Bush is smart, the logical implication must be that he is stupid.
Oh, the irony.
The problem is not that the President is stupid. He isn’t stupid. If you want to see stupid I can show you any number of outstanding examples. Better yet, wander down to your local court house on minor crimes day or on the day the child support recovery service hold’s “father’s day.” You will be up to your armpits in stupid of the best and most refined sort.
No, the President isn’t stupid. The problem is that the President thinks that we are stupid; if not stupid then lazy, inattentive and disinterested. Not that he doesn’t have a sound basis to think that.
How else to you explain the failure of the electorate to call him on the claim that the tax cuts he pushed through Congress are a stimulus that has/will provide a quick cure to the economic doldrums we have been in for three years now? How else do you explain why some five or six months into the occupation of Iraq there has been no trace of the nuclear, biological or chemical weapons that provided the substantive basis for the invasion and there has not been a universal and popular out cry? How else do you explain why a supermajority of citizens blithely accepted a suggestion from the White House that Sadam had a hand in 9/11 in the total absence of any information to support the idea? How else do you explain why it is that when it became obvious that the occupation forces were not universally accepted in Iraq and when it became obvious that Iraqi oil was not going to pay for the war, the occupation and the reconstruction there was no deafening out cry for a reassessment of policy? How else do you explain it that when some one so much as suggests that just maybe there is a chance that the Administration’s Middle East policy may no have been as well thought out as it might have been, the response from the Administration’s attack dogs in Congress and in the press is to tar the critic as a hater of America and a lover of Sadam or BenLaden, and they get away with it?
I repeat. The President is far from stupid. He may well be short sighted, uninformed, ill advised, venial, reckless, focused on a narrow and self-serving agenda and self-righteous, but he certainly is not lacking in cunning and innate intelligence.
He just thinks that the electorate is stupid. He may be right.
Firstly the “nope” was answering the question posted before about the conveyance of ideas. Bushes average/low intelligence doesn’t hinder the conveyance of the ideas.
To which I followed saying the ideas stank… not his bad speech.
So dont go distorting our answers please. Bush is “average” in my opinion not to justify myself… but due to protectionism, anti-internationalism, lack of diplomacy and war mongering, etc…
I don’t have it backward, you have it sideways. The OP was not - resolved: Bush is stupid. The OP was a question, asking for evidence that Bush is intelligent. Such evidence has been offered. Some accept it, some do not. I do not for the reasons I have stated. I’m under no affirmative position to “prove” Bush’s stupidity. I have looked at the man on television, read about his background and history and formed an opinion of his intelligence that I’m very comfortable with.
And as other posters have noted, he has many other qualities that are much more noxious and alarming than low normal intelligence.
I’m sorry. Did you read your own link? You believe that from a sample of “403 students who visited the Office of Guidance and Testing at Georgia Institute of Technology during the years of 1957-1960” you can determine a conversion equation that will allow you to calculate Bush’s IQ score from his SAT? And what is the “Otis IQ test?” I’m familiar with the Stanford Binet and Wechsler’s scales. I’m not familiar with Otis’ IQ test.
Further, from the link
So, not only is the sample small, but the correlation between the SAT and IQ, despite your claim, was 0.58. Relatively modest, and hardly adequate for determining one score, given the other. So, you have a small sample, a modest correlation, and statistical problems purportedly due to range restriction.
This data is wholly insufficient for the work it is being asked to do. In short, you have no justification for asserting that Bush has an IQ of 129. At least, not with what you have posted here.
This is just getting ridiculous. The premise is that Bush is stupid. Refutations of this assertion are asked for. We prove a gigantic list of evidence. To reiterate:
- SATs that translate to an IQ of 129.
- A degree from Yale.
- An MBA from Harvard.
- Military fighter pilot.
- Defeated 2-term popular governor of a large state.
- Successfully ran two terms as governor, and was seen as a ‘star’ in the GOP long before he ran for President.
- Beat the ‘brilliant’ Al Gore and became President of the United States.
- As President, achieved more of his policy objectives in two years than Clinton managed in eight.
After all this, the assertion is made by the ‘Bush is stupid’ side that we’ve ‘got nothing’ for evidence.
In the meantime, others proclaim that not only is he stupid, he is so dangerously stupid that other countries would be justified in invading the United States to remove him from power.
After all this, here is what I conclude:
Some of you really, really, really hate George Bush.
Your hatred has clouded your judgement to the point where rational conversation about the man is impossible. What you guys are looking for is an endless Bush-bashing party, but you couch your desires in ‘debates’ so you can keep talking about how stupid he is, how dangerous he is, etc. ad nauseum.
Sam:
Did you actually list Bush’s SAT scores and how the correlation to IQ was made? I saw your original post on this, but there wasn’t any cite or explanation.
I certainly think Bush is dangerous. He just wrecked the only consensually agreed-upon international law we had. I do not think he’s stupid, in fact I think he is gifted and an awesome public speaker. I have exactly the same opinion about Hitler. Not to compare, of course.
Your love for Bush has clouded your judgment to the point where you believe that a sample of 400 SAT scores that correlate at about .58 with scores from a non-standard test of IQ in 1960 allow you to translate Bush’s SAT score to an IQ score. The rest of your gigantic mound of evidence has been discussed and is hardly worth typing about. I would just point out that you assert his having “achieved more policy objectives” than Clinton is a sign of intelligence. I would hate to see the state we would be in if he had gotten all of his policy objectives enacted. Wouldn’t this be a sign of intelligence if his policies were having a positive effect? This seems about a good a sign of intelligence as my saying that I successfully convinced my family to invest our life savings in the Segway personal transportation device.
I find it inconcievable that a person of average intelligence would be unable to show any notable improvement in public speaking after serving as governor and president. Despite limiting his exposure to precarious circumstances, such as speaking in public, he still has provided ample fodder for The Complete Bushisms. Relevant to Sam Stone’s assertion regarding process as an indicator of intelligence, Bush himself says
Regarding his own planning and reflection, he says
And my favorite, which I read in a desk calendar of Bush quates, which I think says worlds about one’s intellectual capacities, is