On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:01:06 -0400, Tom Watson
calmly ranted:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:50:01 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:


Damn! I prefer Hunts catsup and I liked the Corvair. What to
do, what to do...

-Doug

Damn Doug - my first car was a 1960 Corvair. I wiped it out exactly
as described in UAAS on two occasions.

BTW - I got that car because Mom bought a new 1968 Corvair - if it
weren't for that, I'd have thought that she was trying to send me a
message.

I owned two '62 Corvair convertibles (at different times)
and throughly enjoyed both of them. Although the red one
was was a street vehicle, it was great in the dirt,
following my buddies on their dirt bikes over small jumps
and such. What a hoot!


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
That would be 1 in 300 million or so since the prez has to be a citizen
of the US, and reduced considerably further by the constitutional age
requirement of 35 years and residency requirement of 14 years. But
since
you don't seem to be aware of this, that's at least one case where he
is
more qualified.

1,000:1 that the Shrub didn't know that, either, Doug.
Truthfully, I'd rather have Dan Quayle holding that office.
It's possible that he would have known the odds.

Just to point out something that should be obvious: I never implied that
Bush was elected in a world-wide election in which every man, woman, and
child was a candidate.

That was Winterburn's strawman argument (which apparently had some
success),
put up because he couldn't argue on merit.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

OK, Jeff. Why don't you try it again? What exactly did you mean by the
statement
"And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most powerful
position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people."
Are you saying that the minimum intelligence of the presidency is the
smartest person on the face of the earth? If not, then what the hell does
this mean?

todd

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dan White" wrote in message news:hpK5d.500 I'm
glad you posted that. Agree with Bush's position or not, the whole
story, as usual, is more than what we are led to believe. Bush fumbled
around, but then went on to address the question more fully. The whole
exchange, from your link, is as follows:

MARK TRAHANT: Most school kids learn about government in the context of
city, county, state and federal, and of course, tribal governments are not
part of that at all. Mr. President, you have been a governor and a
president, so you have unique experience looking at it from two
directions.
What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century and how do
we
resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and state governments?

GEORGE BUSH: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a --
you're a -- you have been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a
sovereign
entity.

MARK TRAHANT: Okay.

GEORGE BUSH: And therefore, the relationship between the federal
government
and tribes is one between sovereign entities. Now, the federal government
has got a responsibility on matters like education and security to help.
And
health care. And it's a solemn duty. From this perspective, we must
continue
to uphold that duty. I think that one of the most promising areas of all
is
to help with economic development, and that means helping people
understand
what it means to start a business. That's why the Small Business
Administration has increased loans. It means, obviously, encouraging
capital
flows, but none of that will happen unless the education systems flourish
and are strong. That's why I told you, we spent $1.1 billion in
reconstruction of Native American schools.



Not such a bad response really.

dwhite

What's the matter, Jeff...no quick comeback to this one?

todd

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:20:43 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:


Wrong. Until we start voting with our consciences, the same old corrupt
reps and dems will scurry about D.C. with full impunity. Michael Badnarik
is my candidate for President. Please join me. Those of us who were
dissatisfied with the corruption in Washington nearly made it go away when
25% of us voted for Perot. All we have to do is band together and put
someone we WANT in office for it to start toward a government that we can
once again be proud of. Just DO IT!

A "lesser of 2 evils" vote is a wasted vote. Until you vote for the third
party candidate of your choice, they don't get any credit for you wanting
-them- over the corrupt sumbishes who are now in office. Until you start
voting differently, we will all keep getting what we've been getting:
Corruption, plain and simple. Let's vote the bad guys _out_, OK?

You have 36 days to make up you mind. Is it going to be the same old ****,
or are you brave enough to vote the way you want to vote in November? Even
if our candidate doesn't win, if all of us vote with our consciences,
there will be big changes in D.C. next year. I guarantee it.

I and many others voted for Perot and look what it got us - Clinton.
After the fact and taking a closer look at Perot, I wonder what the hell I
was thinking. I've already taken a close look at the vanquisher of the
dreaded Corvair, and it ain't really there for me. So, I'm left with the
choice of fight 'em here or fight 'em there rather than sue 'em if their
gas mileage isn't good enough on the suicide bomber planes.

-Doug

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

Look, Larry. Everybody knows (and knew before the election) that President
Bush is not a wordsmith. He sometime fumbles his words. Would you like a
sweet talker like the last occupant who could talk a person's pants off (a
skill used quite frequently) while he's lying right to your face? I'd love
to have someone shove a microphone and camera in your face and ask you about
the nuances of tribal sovereignty.

todd

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT. Now, I didn't take the SAT at all (the ACT
was all the was required for my BigTen school), but after a quick look at
collegeboard.com puts 1200 in the 78th percentile of all scores. In
addition, the SAT is a self-selected test, meaning that it's taken mostly by
people on their way to college (i.e. the population is already skewed to
more intelligent people to begin with). Meaning that on the basis of his
SAT score, Bush is probably in the, oh, 80-85th percentile of intelligence.

I'm making the following assumptions:
a) a 1200 back when Bush took the SAT falls in the same percentile as it
does now. I'd say it's a decent assumption. Don't confuse this with being
able to equate an SAT score from then to now, because you really can't.
b) the SAT is some indication of intelligence. Probably not a 1:1
correlation, but probably enough to draw some kind of conclusion.

Isn't there another page in the liberal playbook that you could turn to? I
mean, every Republican president since Nixon has been a stupid moron
according to the left. How about turning to page 214 "Republicans Want To
Kill All Old People".

todd

In article , "Todd Fatheree" wrote:

I'm making the following assumptions:
a) a 1200 back when Bush took the SAT falls in the same percentile as it
does now.

Incorrect assumption. The SAT was "dumbed down" somewhere around 1980. 1200
when GWB took the SAT would have had a significantly higher percentile rank
than it has now. IIRC, 1250 on the pre-1980 SAT was a qualifying score for
Mensa, which means 98th percentile, so presumably 1200 would not have been too
far behind.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ...
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
He might have if he'd voted in Florida. If there was ever a President
who
would have trouble, it's him.


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot.

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT. Now, I didn't take the SAT at all (the ACT
was all the was required for my BigTen school), but after a quick look at
collegeboard.com puts 1200 in the 78th percentile of all scores. In
addition, the SAT is a self-selected test, meaning that it's taken mostly by
people on their way to college (i.e. the population is already skewed to
more intelligent people to begin with). Meaning that on the basis of his
SAT score, Bush is probably in the, oh, 80-85th percentile of intelligence.

I'm making the following assumptions:
a) a 1200 back when Bush took the SAT falls in the same percentile as it
does now. I'd say it's a decent assumption. Don't confuse this with being
able to equate an SAT score from then to now, because you really can't.
b) the SAT is some indication of intelligence. Probably not a 1:1
correlation, but probably enough to draw some kind of conclusion.

Isn't there another page in the liberal playbook that you could turn to? I
mean, every Republican president since Nixon has been a stupid moron
according to the left. How about turning to page 214 "Republicans Want To
Kill All Old People".

todd



I don't think a 1206 is that shabby, Hell, in '76, an 1180, along with decent academic achievement could get you accepted to CMU,
MIT and others. It is also a dubious argument to equate public speaking with intelligence.

How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot. Ford was a clumsy idiot, Reagan was a
sleepy old fool, Bush 1 didn't even know the price of milk and was out of
touch, Bush 2 is an idiot. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was a genius,
Bill Clinton the first black president and the best thing since sliced
bread, Al Gore the best VP in history, John Kerry oh so sophisticated.

dwhite

Not all of us. I don't think dub is necesarily an idiot. I think
he's smarter than that; smart enough to woo people into thinking he's
dumb. I think the reality is that he's just in the game to gain and
abuse power. Much worse than being an honest idiot in my book. If he
weren't planning on doing things for which he *knows* history will
never forgive why sign Presidential Order 13233? Was he worried that
things he did on record in his father's white house will come out?
The excuse of protecting information sources (read business leaders)
in order to gain their honest opinions is feeble.

hex
-30-

Swingman wrote:
"jo4hn" wrote in message


Why couldn't Bush have taken the honest straightforward path and
admitted that he didn't know? If he felt that he would honestly do so,
he might have added that he would look into the matter. Integrity and
honesty have disappeared.
sigh,


Before you become go too comfortable in the "he didn't know" scenario,
consider:

1997 US Supreme Court: "Indian tribes ... should be accorded the same status
as foreign sovereigns"

Bush: "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a
... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."

So, he stuttered. but where's the beef?

Is it possible a lot of folks are being duped/agendized with some pretty
esoteric bull**** on this issue, and in this thread?

I suggest honesty as a policy and you and Mr. White defend Mr. Bush's
dishonesty. Thank you for proving my point. Depressing as it all is.
j4

"jo4hn" wrote in message
Swingman wrote:
"jo4hn" wrote in message


Why couldn't Bush have taken the honest straightforward path and
admitted that he didn't know? If he felt that he would honestly do so,
he might have added that he would look into the matter. Integrity and
honesty have disappeared.
sigh,


Before you become go too comfortable in the "he didn't know" scenario,
consider:

1997 US Supreme Court: "Indian tribes ... should be accorded the same
status
as foreign sovereigns"

Bush: "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ...
you're a
... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign
entity."

So, he stuttered. but where's the beef?

Is it possible a lot of folks are being duped/agendized with some pretty
esoteric bull**** on this issue, and in this thread?

I suggest honesty as a policy and you and Mr. White defend Mr. Bush's
dishonesty. Thank you for proving my point. Depressing as it all is.

You keep saying that, but you won't specify what it was Bush was supposed to
know and didn't. I gave you what both Bush and the Supreme Court said ...
now you show me where he was wrong/"dishonest".

Just declaring it without something to back up your statements is not
helping your argument.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04

Look folks, much as I hate to destroy your faith in the innate wisdom of
politicians the hard fact is that they ALL stumble when hit with a question
they weren't expecting.

I say this with some confidence since I spent about two decades observing
the breed close up and personal at every level from President of the US to
city council and school board members.

When it comes to stumbling, politicians fall into two categories. First the
ones like Bush who simply, obviously, stumble. The second kind stumble more
glibly, usually by giving a non-responsive and irrelevant answer. Neither
kind is inherently intellectually superior to the other, although for my
money the Bush variety comes across as more honest. I learned long before
Bill Clinton came on the scene that "Slick Willy" style answers often
indicate someone who is by nature untrustworthy.

--RC

Leon wrote:

"Florida Patriot" wrote in message
om...
Telling and funny. In this video clip, Bush shows his intelligent and
straight-forward approach to questions he hasn't been prepped for.

It's a little painful to watch. (The audience actually laughs *at*
him.) And it leaves you shaking your head, mumbling under your breath
"How in the world did we elect this guy leader of the free world?"

http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00...overeignty.mov

At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
people did. Plus, he was by far the better choice.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:40:18 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:20:43 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:


Wrong. Until we start voting with our consciences, the same old corrupt
reps and dems will scurry about D.C. with full impunity. Michael Badnarik
is my candidate for President. Please join me. Those of us who were
dissatisfied with the corruption in Washington nearly made it go away when
25% of us voted for Perot. All we have to do is band together and put
someone we WANT in office for it to start toward a government that we can
once again be proud of. Just DO IT!

A "lesser of 2 evils" vote is a wasted vote. Until you vote for the third
party candidate of your choice, they don't get any credit for you wanting
-them- over the corrupt sumbishes who are now in office. Until you start
voting differently, we will all keep getting what we've been getting:
Corruption, plain and simple. Let's vote the bad guys _out_, OK?

You have 36 days to make up you mind. Is it going to be the same old ****,
or are you brave enough to vote the way you want to vote in November? Even
if our candidate doesn't win, if all of us vote with our consciences,
there will be big changes in D.C. next year. I guarantee it.

I and many others voted for Perot and look what it got us - Clinton.

Spare me. We didn't get the person we voted for but we did exercise
our right to vote. Besides, I'm beginning to think that Clintoon
was better than the misspeller up there right now, and I strongly
disdained Clinton. People don't realize how powerful their votes
are and too easily are swayed by the fear-mongers in both rep and
dem parties who say the world will fall apart if their guy doesn't
make it into office. sigh


After the fact and taking a closer look at Perot, I wonder what the hell I
was thinking. I've already taken a close look at the vanquisher of the
dreaded Corvair, and it ain't really there for me. So, I'm left with the
choice of fight 'em here or fight 'em there rather than sue 'em if their
gas mileage isn't good enough on the suicide bomber planes.

www.badnarik.org Please give Michael a look before you vote for one
of the 2 known corrupt guys.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry Jaques wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

So what if he does or not? The fact remains that GWB went on
so say something sensible in response to the question.

--

FF

Larry Jaques wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

So what if he does or not? The fact remains that GWB went on
so say something sensible in response to the question.

--

FF

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:29:25 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:10:14 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

I didn't say he was chosen from a group of 6 billion, moron.

You dodged the question and employed two types of fallacious reasoning
(tstrawman and ad hominem).

Answer the question honestly and directly. You can't bring yourself
to admit Bush is not qualified, can you?


No wonder elections are such an ordeal in Florida!

Dodged again.

No dodge - whomever gets elected *IS* qualified, simply by coming out
ahead at the end of the process and according to the rules in place
*before* the process. I know this is somewhat mysterious to the leftist
inhabitants of Florida, but keep studying and you won't have to depend on
the Chicago ex-mayor's family to fly in and try to alter the rules *after*
the fact.

I'm not a leftist but am left-handed. Does that count? I don't
agree with your "is qualified" statement in Shrub's case. Of
course, I've only seen him in action on TV, not when up against
another politician while making policy, but everything I've seen
leads me to find the man ineffective. Ditto that on a lot of his
advisors.

Query 1: How many presidents were NOT millionaires prior to
becoming elected to that office?

Query 2: Could there be a connection?


(To those of you in Rio Linda, I'm referring to a very slight
possibility that money buys offices in the U.S. government.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:52:28 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

Look, Larry. Everybody knows (and knew before the election) that President
Bush is not a wordsmith. He sometime fumbles his words. Would you like a
sweet talker like the last occupant who could talk a person's pants off (a
skill used quite frequently) while he's lying right to your face?


I'd love
to have someone shove a microphone and camera in your face and ask you about
the nuances of tribal sovereignty.

I sure wouldn't, but I'd have to answer honestly "I haven't given
it much thought." BUT, if I was dat POTUS guy, I'd have been briefed
weeks or months in advance about possibilities of discussion and
would have made a bit better stab at it, knowwhatImean,Vern?

I have to admit that the guy with the nuclear suitcase still calls
it "newkyaler". It's a bad indicator, y'reckon?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Scattered Showers My Ass! * Insightful Advertising Copy
* --Noah * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

Let me rephrase: Forget you saw the video, read what he said, and then tell
me it isn't reasonable. It is certainly a pretty pat political answer, but
it is still the facts.

dwhite

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:19:08 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

www.badnarik.org Please give Michael a look before you vote for one of
the 2 known corrupt guys.

I took a look and all I can say is Eeeewwwwwwww. Don't post links like
this right after lunch time. Malcom X? "Gutsy" Jimmy Carter was right?

--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:52:28 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

Look, Larry. Everybody knows (and knew before the election) that
President
Bush is not a wordsmith. He sometime fumbles his words. Would you like
a
sweet talker like the last occupant who could talk a person's pants off
(a
skill used quite frequently) while he's lying right to your face?


I'd love
to have someone shove a microphone and camera in your face and ask you
about
the nuances of tribal sovereignty.

I sure wouldn't, but I'd have to answer honestly "I haven't given
it much thought." BUT, if I was dat POTUS guy, I'd have been briefed
weeks or months in advance about possibilities of discussion and
would have made a bit better stab at it, knowwhatImean,Vern?


Frankly, he should take all that stuff and shove it in a drawer somewhere
until it becomes an issue worthy of the POTUS. I'd much rather he spend his
time on the terrorism issue.

I have to admit that the guy with the nuclear suitcase still calls
it "newkyaler". It's a bad indicator, y'reckon?

Typical elitism. I spent years in Houston, and some of the smartest people
I knew sounded like hicks. I knew as soon as he was elected he would get
the good ole' "dumber than a doorstop" thing simply because the liberals on
the coasts aren't familiar with people like that.

dwhite

"hex" wrote in message
om...


How predictable are you guys? The liberal line is always that the
republican president is an idiot. Ford was a clumsy idiot, Reagan was a
sleepy old fool, Bush 1 didn't even know the price of milk and was out
of
touch, Bush 2 is an idiot. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was a
genius,
Bill Clinton the first black president and the best thing since sliced
bread, Al Gore the best VP in history, John Kerry oh so sophisticated.

dwhite

Not all of us. I don't think dub is necesarily an idiot. I think
he's smarter than that; smart enough to woo people into thinking he's
dumb. I think the reality is that he's just in the game to gain and
abuse power. Much worse than being an honest idiot in my book. If he
weren't planning on doing things for which he *knows* history will
never forgive why sign Presidential Order 13233? Was he worried that
things he did on record in his father's white house will come out?
The excuse of protecting information sources (read business leaders)
in order to gain their honest opinions is feeble.


Looks like you've done your brethren one better then! Now he might be
smarter than an idiot, but it's OK if he is because now he's evil.

dwhite

"jo4hn" wrote in message
link.net...
Swingman wrote:
"jo4hn" wrote in message


Why couldn't Bush have taken the honest straightforward path and
admitted that he didn't know? If he felt that he would honestly do so,
he might have added that he would look into the matter. Integrity and
honesty have disappeared.
sigh,


Before you become go too comfortable in the "he didn't know" scenario,
consider:

1997 US Supreme Court: "Indian tribes ... should be accorded the same
status
as foreign sovereigns"

Bush: "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ...
you're a
... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign
entity."

So, he stuttered. but where's the beef?

Is it possible a lot of folks are being duped/agendized with some pretty
esoteric bull**** on this issue, and in this thread?

I suggest honesty as a policy and you and Mr. White defend Mr. Bush's
dishonesty. Thank you for proving my point. Depressing as it all is.
j4


I'm just making the statement that if he just says "Beats me!" his opponents
will manipulate it all around in commercials and black and white photos and
evil sounding music.

dwhite

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
That would be 1 in 300 million or so since the prez has to be a
citizen
of the US, and reduced considerably further by the constitutional age
requirement of 35 years and residency requirement of 14 years. But
since
you don't seem to be aware of this, that's at least one case where he
is
more qualified.

1,000:1 that the Shrub didn't know that, either, Doug.
Truthfully, I'd rather have Dan Quayle holding that office.
It's possible that he would have known the odds.

Just to point out something that should be obvious: I never implied that
Bush was elected in a world-wide election in which every man, woman, and
child was a candidate.

That was Winterburn's strawman argument (which apparently had some
success),
put up because he couldn't argue on merit.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

OK, Jeff. Why don't you try it again? What exactly did you mean by the
statement
"And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most powerful
position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people."
Are you saying that the minimum intelligence of the presidency is the
smartest person on the face of the earth? If not, then what the hell does
this mean?

It means that the President of the United States is the most powerful man in
the world. Of all 6 billion people, he is the most powerful.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT. Now, I didn't take the SAT at all (the ACT
was all the was required for my BigTen school), but after a quick look at
collegeboard.com puts 1200 in the 78th percentile of all scores. In
addition, the SAT is a self-selected test, meaning that it's taken mostly
by
people on their way to college (i.e. the population is already skewed to
more intelligent people to begin with). Meaning that on the basis of his
SAT score, Bush is probably in the, oh, 80-85th percentile of
intelligence.

Provide a link (to a legit source) confirming that was Bush's score.

I find it hard to believe.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the
most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT. Now, I didn't take the SAT at all (the
ACT
was all the was required for my BigTen school), but after a quick look
at
collegeboard.com puts 1200 in the 78th percentile of all scores. In
addition, the SAT is a self-selected test, meaning that it's taken
mostly
by
people on their way to college (i.e. the population is already skewed to
more intelligent people to begin with). Meaning that on the basis of
his
SAT score, Bush is probably in the, oh, 80-85th percentile of
intelligence.

Provide a link (to a legit source) confirming that was Bush's score.

I find it hard to believe.

Is UP a legit source? Just to depress you some more, according to the
story, because of score inflation, his score would equate to a 1280 today,
which is the 88th percentile today.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r

I'm sure my looking is just a waste of time as you won't let these petty
facts alter any of your statements.

todd

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
"And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most powerful
position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people."
Are you saying that the minimum intelligence of the presidency is the
smartest person on the face of the earth? If not, then what the hell
does
this mean?
It means that the President of the United States is the most powerful man
in
the world. Of all 6 billion people, he is the most powerful.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Well, your earlier statement wasn't clear in that regard. So, knowing that
his SAT scores would be in the 88th percentile today, according to a UP
story (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r), I'd say
he has appropriate intelligence. I know...you want a minimum of 90%.

todd

In article , wrote:

Query 1: How many presidents were NOT millionaires prior to
becoming elected to that office?

Most of them, actually.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
"And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful
position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people."
Are you saying that the minimum intelligence of the presidency is the
smartest person on the face of the earth? If not, then what the hell
does
this mean?
It means that the President of the United States is the most powerful
man
in
the world. Of all 6 billion people, he is the most powerful.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Well, your earlier statement wasn't clear in that regard. So, knowing
that
his SAT scores would be in the 88th percentile today, according to a UP
story (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r), I'd say
he has appropriate intelligence. I know...you want a minimum of 90%.

I'll be damned..he got 88th percentile. Thanks for the link.

Also of note in the article you cited:

Simonton told UPI, "In raw intellect, Bush is about average" for a
president.

On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard to
use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or
curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic or
cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level of
"openness to experience."

Indeed, despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide
connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running,
fishing and baseball. His biographers state, however, that he has paid
relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people
who could fill them.

Simonton also suggested, "Bush scores extremely low on integrative
complexity. ... This is the capacity to look at issues from multiple
perspectives and to integrate that diverse outlook into a single coherent
viewpoint. ... Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his
own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I
hear you,' but he really can't."

Provide a link (to a legit source) confirming that was Bush's score.

I find it hard to believe.

Is UP a legit source? Just to depress you some more, according to the
story, because of score inflation, his score would equate to a 1280 today,
which is the 88th percentile today.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r

Also of note in the article you linked:

On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard to
use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or
curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic or
cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level of
"openness to experience."

Indeed, despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide
connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running,
fishing and baseball. His biographers state, however, that he has paid
relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people
who could fill them.

Simonton also suggested, "Bush scores extremely low on integrative
complexity. ... This is the capacity to look at issues from multiple
perspectives and to integrate that diverse outlook into a single coherent
viewpoint. ... Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his
own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I
hear you,' but he really can't."

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

Simonton also suggested, "Bush scores extremely low on integrative
complexity. ... This is the capacity to look at issues from multiple
perspectives and to integrate that diverse outlook into a single coherent
viewpoint. ... Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his
own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I
hear you,' but he really can't."


But I think he comes a bit close to overstating the limits of the numbers on
paper. That last sentence is a bit over the top.

dwhite

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:38:33 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:

Query 1: How many presidents were NOT millionaires prior to
becoming elected to that office?

Most of them, actually.


depending how you adjust for inflation, I suspect.....

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:17:10 -0700, Doug Winterburn
calmly ranted:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:19:08 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

www.badnarik.org Please give Michael a look before you vote for one of
the 2 known corrupt guys.

I took a look and all I can say is Eeeewwwwwwww. Don't post links like
this right after lunch time. Malcom X? "Gutsy" Jimmy Carter was right?

WTF are you on about?!?

--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -

"Al Reid" wrote in message ...

I don't think a 1206 is that shabby, Hell, in '76, an 1180, along with decent academic achievement could get you accepted to CMU,
MIT and others. It is also a dubious argument to equate public speaking with intelligence.

Really? In 1979, an 1180 would get you into an average state school.
It wouldn't get you anywhere near MIT. In '79, you had to be pushing
1400 to be in the 98th percentile, and at that point you had a
fighting chance of getting accepted to MIT.

Of course things could have changed between '76 and '79.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:56:44 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
wrote:

Provide a link (to a legit source) confirming that was Bush's score.

I find it hard to believe.

Is UP a legit source? Just to depress you some more, according to the
story, because of score inflation, his score would equate to a 1280 today,
which is the 88th percentile today.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r

Also of note in the article you linked:

On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard to
use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or
curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic or
cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level of
"openness to experience."


This brings up an interesting perspective. When looking at statements,
they fall into 4 categories: 1) Facts, 2) Opinions, 3) Feelings, and 4)
Beliefs.

Now, the statement regarding where Bush scored is a fact -- it is
something happened, is unalterable, and is not open to debate. For someone
who has been trying to show how dumb, how inept, and how stupid Bush is,
this is a problem. It undermines a primary feeling or belief possessed by
that person that Bush is unworthy.

Thus, the subsequent statements by Simonton fall into the category of pure
opinion. It is Simonton's OPINION that Bush has little intellectual energy
or curiositiy. It is his OPINION that Bush doesn't use the brains he's
got. It is Simonton's OPINION that Bush's aesthetic and cultural tastes
are not "bona fide". [Whetever *that* is supposed to mean relative to some
pretty subjective criteria]. These opinions all serve more to expose
Simonton's beliefs and feelings than they do to serve as an indication of
Bush's qualifications one way or the other.


Indeed, despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide
connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running,
fishing and baseball. His biographers state, however, that he has paid
relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people
who could fill them.


First sentence again leaves a connotation of the commentator's beliefs
and opinions rather than any real substantive indictment of Bush's
abilities. The second sentence finally begins to return to statements of
fact. Now, an opinion that can be drawn from the fact that Bush "pays
relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people
who could fill them" is that this is one of the qualities of a leader.



Simonton also suggested, "Bush scores extremely low on integrative
complexity. ... This is the capacity to look at issues from multiple
perspectives and to integrate that diverse outlook into a single coherent
viewpoint. ... Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his
own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I
hear you,' but he really can't."


Again, these statements serve more to illustrate the opinions, feelings,
and beliefs of the commentator rather than serving as a substantive
assessment of the person being critiqued. Note that no facts are cited (if
such "facts" could even be ascertained regarding something so nebulous and
esoteric as "integrative complexity"). One way to restate the above that
accentuates the positive, rather than connotes a negative is to make the
statement that Bush has a solid world-view and does not change his
positions with the shifting of the political winds. Again, such a
characteristic is one of the key characteristics of a leader, one who will
stand by a decision and see it through, not shifting direction at the first
or second setback encountered along the way. [Yes, that statement is an
opinion].

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:17:37 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:52:28 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

Look, Larry. Everybody knows (and knew before the election) that
President
Bush is not a wordsmith. He sometime fumbles his words. Would you like
a
sweet talker like the last occupant who could talk a person's pants off
(a
skill used quite frequently) while he's lying right to your face?


I'd love
to have someone shove a microphone and camera in your face and ask you
about
the nuances of tribal sovereignty.

I sure wouldn't, but I'd have to answer honestly "I haven't given
it much thought." BUT, if I was dat POTUS guy, I'd have been briefed
weeks or months in advance about possibilities of discussion and
would have made a bit better stab at it, knowwhatImean,Vern?

Frankly, he should take all that stuff and shove it in a drawer somewhere
until it becomes an issue worthy of the POTUS.

The American citizenry is not worthy of Presidential oversight
or acknowledgment? If it weren't worthy of him, why was he there
in the first place?


I'd much rather he spend his
time on the terrorism issue.

WHAT terrorism issue? 2 (external) attacks in TEN YEARS?
Bin Freakin' Laden is laughing his ass off over all of
our useless scurrying around and wasting billions of dollars
over entirely ineffectual "safety" protocols which students
and housewives have proven. In fact, I couldn't take my 2"
pocket knife on board the plane but waltzed right through all
of the security checkpoints with a 9" sharpened pencil sticking
out of my shirt pocket. At one point, the pencil was at eye level
of a guard and less than 18" away from him. He looked at it and
said absolutely nothing. If I were a terrorist, would you rather
I attack you with a 2" knife or a pencil which could scratch
the inside of your skull and stir your brain around? Yeah, we're
sure safer on planes now than we were in early 2001. Are they
checking all the freight going on passenger airlines yet? I know
the bags we bring on are checked thoroughly by harried workers.


I have to admit that the guy with the nuclear suitcase still calls
it "newkyaler". It's a bad indicator, y'reckon?

Typical elitism. I spent years in Houston, and some of the smartest people
I knew sounded like hicks. I knew as soon as he was elected he would get
the good ole' "dumber than a doorstop" thing simply because the liberals on
the coasts aren't familiar with people like that.

I'm no liberal and grew up in Arkansas. Try again. Faubus was the
corrupt Governor back then, before a corrupt Clintoon took office.

--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:13:16 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
calmly ranted:

Not such a bad response really.

Puhleeze! You really want to reelect that guy, don't you?
major sigh

Let me rephrase: Forget you saw the video, read what he said, and then tell
me it isn't reasonable. It is certainly a pretty pat political answer, but
it is still the facts.

Relying on memory of a quick read of the previously quoted site, King
George _didn't_answer_the_question_. He mentioned US gov't programs
and political crap but said nothing about tribal sovereignty.

Without further clarification, especially after all he's done in
recent times, I'd think the Prez meant that the tribes -didn't-
have any, could not self-rule, and were being taken over by King
George as yet another part of his quest for global domination.

Bottom line: It isn't reasonable.

If I missed something, please quote his actual answer to the
question. I think it was a complete sidestep and the King's
handlers are rolling over in their (wished for) graves.

--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:48:46 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
calmly ranted:

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT. Now, I didn't take the SAT at all (the ACT
was all the was required for my BigTen school), but after a quick look at
collegeboard.com puts 1200 in the 78th percentile of all scores. In
addition, the SAT is a self-selected test, meaning that it's taken mostly
by
people on their way to college (i.e. the population is already skewed to
more intelligent people to begin with). Meaning that on the basis of his
SAT score, Bush is probably in the, oh, 80-85th percentile of
intelligence.

Provide a link (to a legit source) confirming that was Bush's score.

I find it hard to believe.

And show me where 6 extra points out of 1200 = 7 percentile.
6/1200 = 0.005 x 0.78 = 0.0039 + 0.78 = ~78.4 percentile
(I know, invalid numbers/unknown qty in sample, but still...)

--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...
Provide a link (to a legit source) confirming that was Bush's score.

I find it hard to believe.

Is UP a legit source? Just to depress you some more, according to the
story, because of score inflation, his score would equate to a 1280
today,
which is the 88th percentile today.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r

Also of note in the article you linked:

On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard
to
use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or
curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic
or
cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level
of
"openness to experience."

Indeed, despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide
connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running,
fishing and baseball. His biographers state, however, that he has paid
relentless attention to structuring organizations and assessing the people
who could fill them.

Simonton also suggested, "Bush scores extremely low on integrative
complexity. ... This is the capacity to look at issues from multiple
perspectives and to integrate that diverse outlook into a single coherent
viewpoint. ... Bush finds it hard to view the world in other way than his
own. That's why he's so hard to engage in a genuine debate. He can say 'I
hear you,' but he really can't."

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

How predictable. Funny how you failed to mention the two other people
mentioned in the article that put the President's IQ at 120-125. By the
way, do you know when Simonton examined the President, or is he just
basically guessing? Hobbies are only running, fishing, and baseball?
Sounds like a good time to me. I'm sure for a California professor that's a
boring life, but for a large segment of the educated population, that would
sound pretty good. Heck, right now my hobbies are a) raising young-ins and
b) woodworking (mostly when they're asleep). I also notice you didn't
bother putting this in.

"In contrast, the Morning News recounted, "On the 'officer quality section,'
designed to measure intangible traits such as leadership, Mr. Bush scored
better than 95 percent of those taking the test."

Of course, this doesn't address your assertion that Bush isn't the brightest
bulb on the Christmas tree. One Cal professor's *opinion* notwithstanding,
on the basis of the *facts* we know, would you conclude he has the intellect
to be President? Heck, even your new best friend Professor Simonton says
his intelligence is "about average" for a President.

todd

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:48:46 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
calmly ranted:

Uh huh. And you think he has the intelligence appropriate for the
most
powerful position in the world? Number 1 out of 6 billion people.

Do you really?

Bush scored a 1206 on his SAT. Now, I didn't take the SAT at all (the
ACT
was all the was required for my BigTen school), but after a quick look
at
collegeboard.com puts 1200 in the 78th percentile of all scores. In
addition, the SAT is a self-selected test, meaning that it's taken
mostly
by
people on their way to college (i.e. the population is already skewed
to
more intelligent people to begin with). Meaning that on the basis of
his
SAT score, Bush is probably in the, oh, 80-85th percentile of
intelligence.

Provide a link (to a legit source) confirming that was Bush's score.

I find it hard to believe.

And show me where 6 extra points out of 1200 = 7 percentile.
6/1200 = 0.005 x 0.78 = 0.0039 + 0.78 = ~78.4 percentile
(I know, invalid numbers/unknown qty in sample, but still...)

OK, Larry, you got me because I don't have the slightest idea what you're
talking about with the 7 percentile stuff. If you're wondering how I got
from 78th to 85th percentile, why not try actually reading (and
understanding) what I wrote. I didn't figure I'd have to go into this level
of detail, but I guess I do. First, I have to admit to being wrong about
one thing. I was extrapolating Bush's SAT score to current scores and using
that as a basis to get to the 78th percentile number. After further review,
according to at UP story at
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...4-074349-3947r, Bush's 1206
equates to a 1280 today, which would put him in the 88th percentile today.
What percentile a 1206 put you in 30 some odd years ago, I don't know. The
part that you apparently just skipped over is that I was attempting to
guestimate Bush's intelligence in the overall population, not just in the
population of SAT test-takers. It's a reasonable assumption that those
taking the SAT are already smarter than average since these are the folk
generally headed for college. So, the population of SAT takers is already
skewed on the smarter side of the general population. Thus, being in the
78th percentile of the SAT taking population would put you in some higher
percentage of the general population. My guess was in the 80-85th
percentile. So, your calculation has nothing to do with what I was talking
about, other than giving the President another half-percentile that I wasn't
going to bother with. However, if you were actually going to do this
calculation, it would be better to do it this way. First, the data on SAT
scores/percentiles can be found at
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_dow...f/table_3b.pdf

SAT Percentile
1200 78
1210 80

Interpolating between 1200 and 1210 for 1206 gives

1200 + (80-78)/(1210-1200)*(1206-1200) = 79.2

However, we now know that the 1206 score converts to a score today of 1280,
which needs no intepolation since it's listed on the table at 88th
percentile.

todd