Also, if you’ll look at the link that Diogenes the Cynic provided, the link with the estimated IQs, you’ll notice the name William Sidis. I’ve heard of Sidis before and he was apparently well know during the early 1900s. Despite having an extremely high IQ, Sidis, in his adult life was 'socially backward’ to the point he accomplished very little. Not that Sidis didn’t show early promise. By age five Sidis was reading in Russian, French, and German. By eight, he had passed the entrance exams for both MIT and Harvard. As an adult, Sidis never married, held the most menial of jobs, and simply did his best to disappear. So no, IQ ability doesn’t necessarily translate beyond the scope of what it measures ---- even though it does correlate with quite a few things that might be surprising to most. Including, in some cases, your pending death. :eek:
I didn’t provide a way to measure it, but I did provide a way to recognize it:
I think you certainly can. If you wake up in and look out the window, you will be able to tell whether it is day or night, even if you don’t know what time it is.
Similarly, based on the intelligence “rule” I gave above, I can see that several people on this board that I disagree with on several issues, like xtisme and you John, are indeed intelligent because they can explain their positions in a clear and logical way. I don’t have to know your IQ scores or SAT scores to deduce that.
IMHO, Bush fails the above intelligence rule.
“Bushco” isn’t precious to me, nor have they backed me into anything.
Bullshit. I don’t have to do any such thing.
More bullshit. I don’t have to do anything of the sort.
So the whole first paragraph is strawmen from start to finish.
Next paragraph:
Nonsensical, unrelated hogwash as explained above.
More bullshit. The funny feeling’s the minor stress associated with honoring GD rules after reading a unfounded, prejudiced, public assault on my character as a member of the GOP.
If there were a chance of this sort of thing happening, then there would be a chance that this is not a straw man. However…
In short, the OP’s a congealed glob of ad hom attacks against a group. Solely because it’s against a group rather than me personally it’s doesn’t go against the letter of GD rules.
It’s obvious that you’re just trying to rouse some ire and raise some hackles for own meager amusement with the confrontational language and abusive tone.
Next time you get the urge to write and OP like this, why don’t you cram it right up The Pit? Cause it’s not a debate.
An entirely subjective method which presupposes the existence of a “correct answer” to real life question. By that method, Kennedy and Johnson are not intelligent (Vietnam War), Gordon Moore is not intelligent (there is no market for a personal computer), Gore is not intelligent (he should have known he would lose the election), etc. etc. etc.
Which is precisely why we **DO ** use standardize tests to measure intelligence. It’s only in that type of controlled situation when there **IS ** a correct answer.
Thanks for making my point for me, Iskander.
In 1945, lots of Democrats WERE racists. The whole Republican Southern Strategy was about wooing the southern racists who HAD been in the Democratic Party (the Yellow Dog democrats) over to the Republican Party – and it succeeded very well.
And while dropping the A-bombs was a mass slaughter, I don’t know that it can be characterized as a murder, as part of the rationale for it is one I find convincing: that taking the Japanese mainland via a land invasion would likely cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. It was a cold, hard decision to have to make, and they made it, and I don’t envy them at all for having had to make it.
But it definitely wouldn’t have been a strawman to say a lot of Dems were KKKers back in the first half of the 1900s. Not at all.
Calling something hogwash and bullshit without backing it up with an explanation is an expression of opinion. It’s not an argument.
Actually, it doesn’t go against GD rules at all, in letter or in spirit. I’m not attacking an individual, I’m making assertions and backing them up with logic. I made the rhetorical point that the Bush Administration’s use of torture forces the Republicans who support the Bush Administration to defend them. Seymour Hirsch has information to the effect that Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice both signed off on the use of torture at Abu Ghraib, and if you don’t think members of Congress won’t be gunning for them now you’re sadly mistaken. People are going to have to defend them. Republican people. Or Rumsfeld and Rice will have to fall on their swords to preserve King George. It’ll be fun to watch – I’m looking forward to it either way.
And the Republicans are clearly against marriage … wait for it … wait for it … wait for it … for gays.
I want to make clear the moral bankruptcy that the Republican Party is being driven to by the Bush Admin, which has been squandering moral credibility quite wildly of late. How upset you do or don’t get as a result of my clear and forceful statements is of little interest to me.
It can be Pit material or GD material either way, depending on how it’s handled. I’m keeping things GD for my part.
I clearly explained right after each exclamation of hogwash and bullshit. I’m a Republican, and: I’m not backed into anything by the Bush Admin; I don’t have to defend the horrible actions at Abu Ghraib, (or anywhere else for that matter); I don’t have to make any attacks re people’s right to get married.
Try it like this:
Citation for “Bushco” being precious to me, please.
Citation for me being backed into a corner by “Bushco,” please.
Citation for me having to “defend the torture at Abu Ghraib,” please.
Citation for this being a necessity of mine, please
Citation for your assessment of the condition of my sense of morality, please.
Cite for any of what’s been mentioned above having the potential to make my head explode, please
There. Those are you assertions. You back the nasty little shits up with something.
AFAICT, you’re wrong from start to finish. I don’t do any of those things so it’s hardly reasonable to say that I “have to” do any of them.
Think so do you? It seems that you’ve merely levelled grossly inaccurate and utterly unfounded attacks against me as a member of the GOP.
What logic did you use to back up the above mentioned assertions about me that’re irrefutably false? As far as I can see you just made baseless assertions about my character and the state of my morals.
If you’re able, please back up your assertions with citations in the appropriate places as indicated above.
This is circular logic. Those who supprt the Bush Admin defend the Bush Admin by definition. There’s no need to insert any other variable into the statement.
Why the hell wouldn’t I think that members of Congress smell blood in the water? (Some of them smell it everyday on account of their bloody noses.) What the hell does this have to do with the accusations you’ve made against me as a Republican?
Cool. Then you’re all set and ready buckle up to the bar with those citations I’ve asked for, right cowboy?
Evil Captor, I’m going to have to defend SimonX, I think. There are Republicans on and off thos board who deserve some criticism for thei mindless fealty to Bush but SimonX isn’t one of them. He’s been pretty vocal in his condemnations of Bushco and his dismay at what this administration has done to his party. SimonX may be a Republican but he’s no toady for Bush. I don’t think it’s inconsistent for him to want to be loyal to his party but to want to get Bushco out of the leadership. I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that all Republicans support the anti-gay marriage amendment (I think more than a few are embarrassed by it) and it certainly isn’t fair to say that they support the torture policies at Abu Ghraib. It’s possible to be a Republican- and to want to remain a Republican- without supporting Bush as the face of the party.
(SimonX, I hope I’m presenting an accurate reflection of your views. It’s my impression from reading many of posts. Please correct me if I got anything wrong).
[QUOTE]
By that method, Kennedy and Johnson are not intelligent (Vietnam War), Gordon Moore is not intelligent (there is no market for a personal computer), Gore is not intelligent (he should have known he would lose the election), etc. etc. etc.
[QUOTE]
I did not say that intelligent people are infallible. Sure, we all make mistakes, it’s just that, on average, an intelligent person is expected to make better decisions than a less intelligent one.
Also, you are leaving out the second part of the rule: to be able to use clear and logical arguments to defend your actions.
Bush’s “because they hate freedom” “logic” is no logic at all.
Ick. Evil Captor, never make me defend Republicans again, m’kay?
The OP is intellectually corrupt, and it didn’t have to be. Yes, Bush is negligent–criminally negligent, IMO–in how he’s handled the post-invasion occupation of Iraq. Worse, it’s seeming more and more as if he was actively malicious: if the buck passes any further up the chain of command, it could turn out that Bush himself approved the use of torture on prisoners. I hasten to add that the buck has NOT passed this far; right now Rumsfeld is holding it. But it’s been moving steadily upward since the scandal broke.
And yes, some Republicans have, in a horrifying display of callousness, dismissed the seriousness of the torture. Some Republicans have acted as if the prisoners deserved the torture. Pour your contempt on those Republicans with my blessing. If you find any Democrats acting the same way, hold them in equal contempt.
HOWEVER! Bush has NOT downplayed the seriousness of the scandal. He has issued what I believe is the first apology of his presidency, and possibly of his political life. He shows every sign of understanding how terrible this situation is. Moreover, Republicans in general (with the exceptions mentioned above) has demonstrated that they understand the same thing. Have you not been paying attention to the Republican-led hearings in Congress over the past couple weeks?
Your overbroad accusations serve one primary purpose: they alienate people from the Democratic party, give people the impression that Democrats are irrational and shrill.
Please stop it.
This isn’t to say that the Republican party isn’t open to attacks on both these issues. I agree with you on the issue of gay mariage, of course; attack away on this front, as it’s the right thing to do. And keep Bush’s feet to the fire about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, about his misplaced trust in Rumsfeld, about his cavalier dismissal of the Geneva Conventions, about the deceptive means by which he dragged us into this war, and so forth.
Just quit painting all Republicans with the same brush, and quit attacking Bush with inacuracies.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Polerius]
OK. Can you give us a list of all the decisions Bush has made and score them correct/incorrect so we can see how he does “on average”? Be sure not to leave any out.
Since we’re talking about Iraq, Bush apparantly was able to use enough of a logical argument to get a vote of 77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 133 in the House to authorize him to use force against Iraq. Maybe he lied to get the job done. If so, I’d submit that it takes more intelligence to accomplish something like that by lying than by telling the truth. Or are you suggesting that any old dumb-ass can get the Congress to vote for war?
The “because they hate freedom” soundbite is just that-- a political soundbite. If that’s all he used to convince Congress, then certainly we can agree that Bush is more intelligent than 75% of the members of Congress.
I am. 
Or do you want to point to the last president whose request for war authorization was turned down by Congress?
Voting against war is broadly considered political suicide in the US. It’s like voting against increasing criminal penalties or something.
Not saying Bush is a dumbass; I’m also not saying he’s NOT a dumbass. I’m just saying that being the president makes it pretty easy to get Congress to vote for whatever dumbshit military exercise you want to engage in.
Daniel
There’s also the matter of a president not submitting a resolution unless he’s damn sure it’ll pass, so I don’t think your point is well taken.
FDR wanted us involved in WWII like nobody’s business. I don’t know that he actually pushed Congress to vote for it, but if not, he knew better than to try until Pearl Harbor.
And although everyone probably thinks GHWB sailed his Gulf War resolution thru congress easily, it only passed the Senate by 52 to 47.
Fair enough. Still and all, it’s disturbingly easy to get such resolutions passed; without a steady history of rejected resolutions (or failed attempts at getting support for such resolutions), your point that getting a war resolution passed points to W’s intelligence also isn’t well taken.
Daniel
It also (AFAIK) prevents same-sex marriages – even those performed in gay-marriage-allowing states – from being recognized at the Federal level. This means that legitimate same-sex married couples will still have to file Federal Income Tax returns with a filing status of “single,” with the higher tax rates that entails.
True. But can you give an example when a resolution was passed by the Senate with a larger majority than Bush II got? If not, I submit the point **IS ** well taken.
I’m a little confused. Are you arguing that he got an extraordinarily large majority in support of his war, especially when compared to the support a president gets from a Congress controlled by his same party?
If so, it’s your job to show that. I’m just saying that the point isn’t supported so far, because you’ve not shown that Bush accomplished anything extraordinary.
Daniel
Congress vote the way it does based on individual constituencies. Like Tip O’Neil once said, “all politics is local.”
In the wake of 9/11 American bloodthirst and bumper sticker patriotism was at a fever pitch. Individual senators were afraid to look like pussies to their constituents. Bush got them to vote right before the congressional elections so that anyone who voted against it could be politically tarred by the Pubs as “unpatriotic.”
Bush himself was all but irrelevant to the process. Congress voted for the war out of fear of the voters not because of any statesmanship by Bush.
We’re talking about intelligence, not statesmenship. I wouldn’t argue that Bush was a good example of the latter. He wanted war in Iraq, and he was able to take advantage of the circumstances to get it. As far is intelligence goes, that’s all that really matters.
When you’re playing poker with someone, you can only pull the “you’re just winning because you get lucky cards” line a few times before you should realize that maybe the other guy is a better poker player.
Wouldn’t a smart senators realize that Bush was lying to them and the war was illegal and unjustified? For example Kerry can’t say shit about the war being unjustified or illegal becuas he voted for the war.