| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
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. 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." 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. 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." Bottom line: It isn't reasonable. Tell that to the Supreme Court, 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. 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." Got it yet? -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message om...
"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. I don't know. Perhaps there was something else they saw in the transcripts that they liked. Although I chose not to attend either, for financial considerations, I am still honored to have been accepted. A friend in college that had somewhere about a 1410 on his SAT and finished first in our EE class was what I would call a genius. Rarely ever missed a single question on an exam. Put in front of a group to talk, was almost incoherent. I had to help him with his labs because he could almost never get them to work. If you didn't know him, you might think he was not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. You can't judge a book by it's cover seems to apply here. So, GWB fumbles with words and is not the most articulate president we have ever had. Perhaps he mispronounces certain words. One should not, however confuse that with a lack of intelligence. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Reid" wrote in message
So, GWB fumbles with words and is not the most articulate president we have ever had. Perhaps he mispronounces certain words. One should not, however confuse that with a lack of intelligence. The question should never have been presented, and continued, as one of "intelligence", but of "ignorance" instead. Must be something in the sawdust, because not many here, even those rabidly pro-Bush, seem to be able to grasp that simple fact, or differentiate between the two. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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%. todd BTW, speaking of SAT scores, what was Kerry's score? As far as I can tell, he won't release it. Is he hiding something? Perhaps the same reason that he won't sign form 180 to release the rest of his military records. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Swingman" "Al Reid" wrote in message So, GWB fumbles with words and is not the most articulate president we have ever had. Perhaps he mispronounces certain words. One should not, however confuse that with a lack of intelligence. The question should never have been presented, and continued, as one of "intelligence", but of "ignorance" instead. Must be something in the sawdust, because not many here, even those rabidly pro-Bush, seem to be able to grasp that simple fact, or differentiate between the two. I believe most here were responding to the debate over his intelligence because that's what was presented. Whether you feel it was a misguided argument is irrelevent. What's in your sawdust? |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
"Swingman" The question should never have been presented, and continued, as one of "intelligence", but of "ignorance" instead. Must be something in the sawdust, because not many here, even those rabidly pro-Bush, seem to be able to grasp that simple fact, or differentiate between the two. I believe most here were responding to the debate over his intelligence because that's what was presented. Yep, you got that right, Festus ... it seems that is _exactly_ what I was taking issue with, huh?. Whether you feel it was a misguided argument is irrelevent. And to prove my point, your "irrelevent" above simply shows your ignorance, not your intelligence. What's _is_ relevant is that only the ignorant would opine that the difference between "intelligence" and "ignorance" is irrelevant. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:14:45 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
calmly ranted: "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. Who misquoted that? I missed the original post. It actually read "Bush's score is the equivalent of a 1280 under today's dumbed-down scoring system.", the key concept ("last 3 words" to those of you in Rio Linda) omitted. "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." I find that VERY hard to believe from what I've seen of the man. I see no more leadership in him than I do in myself, and I'm a self-admitted hermit, fer chrissake. Re-electing Bush would be akin to a self-inflicted wound. ------------------------------------------------------------- * * Humorous T-shirts Online * Norm's Got Strings * Wondrous Website Design * * http://www.diversify.com ------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , "Swingman" wrote:
What _is_ relevant is that only the ignorant would opine that the difference between "intelligence" and "ignorance" is irrelevant. Yep -- former co-worker had a sign up on his cube reading Ignorance can be cured Stupidity is forever -- 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. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Al Reid" wrote in message ... "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%. todd BTW, speaking of SAT scores, what was Kerry's score? As far as I can tell, he won't release it. Is he hiding something? Perhaps the same reason that he won't sign form 180 to release the rest of his military records. I don't know. But I bet it was pretty high. Gore's was 1355. Verbal 625, Math 730. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." 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. What kind of opinion? Oh, yeah, "educated opinion of a professional in the field." That beats *your* opinion, I bet. If not, please link your vita. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
... 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." 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. What kind of opinion? Oh, yeah, "educated opinion of a professional in the field." That beats *your* opinion, I bet. If not, please link your vita. I know you're not responding to my post, but the point is that we don't have to have an "opinion" about the SAT scores. They are what they are and they put the President somewhere between the 80th and 90th percentiles of all SAT takers. Simonton is using who knows what to come to some pretty strong conclusions based on the fact that I'll bet he's never been within 1000 yards of the President. I still haven't seen you admit that the President is a reasonably intelligent man with whom you just disagree. Or is it so important to you that he's not that you'll just ignore the backup info you asked for? todd |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
... BTW, speaking of SAT scores, what was Kerry's score? As far as I can tell, he won't release it. Is he hiding something? Perhaps the same reason that he won't sign form 180 to release the rest of his military records. I don't know. But I bet it was pretty high. Uh huh. Which do you think is more likely? a) they're sooooo high that Kerry feels it will embarass the President if they were released, so he's holding them back out of consideration for the President. b) they're around or lower than the President's and there is no way in hell he'll release them and suffer by comparison Probably the same reason Kerry refuses to sign form 180 to release his military records. They're probably stuffed full of commendations and letters of recommendation, and Kerry's just too humble to let that out. That's probably it. Now, meet my girlfriend.....uhhh......Morgan Fairchild......yeah, that's the ticket. Gore's was 1355. Verbal 625, Math 730. Well, unless Gore took the test for Kerry, I don't know how they're relevant to this conversation. todd |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Swingman" "Fletis Humplebacker" "Swingman" The question should never have been presented, and continued, as one of "intelligence", but of "ignorance" instead. Must be something in the sawdust, because not many here, even those rabidly pro-Bush, seem to be able to grasp that simple fact, or differentiate between the two. I believe most here were responding to the debate over his intelligence because that's what was presented. Yep, you got that right, Festus ... it seems that is _exactly_ what I was taking issue with, huh?. No, you were sniveling that the debate wasn't about something else instead of presenting the something else. That's the point. And the name is Fletis, not Festus. Read more slowly if necessary. I didn't question what you responded to I questioned your reasoning. How did that escape you? Whether you feel it was a misguided argument is irrelevent. And to prove my point, your "irrelevent" above simply shows your ignorance, not your intelligence. It was irrelevent to you because you are apparently too enamored with yourself to understand the point. If you had a more relevent argument to make you should have made it instead of sniveling about it being presented wrong, while pretending to have some measure of superior intellect. What's _is_ relevant is that only the ignorant would opine that the difference between "intelligence" and "ignorance" is irrelevant. Do you ever have anything substantive to offer or is this about it ? Someone can be intelligent but be ignorant of quite a bit if they choose not to exercise their intellect, which was the point being made. I think your ignorance has more to do with genetics than habit. |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
Whether you feel it was a misguided argument is irrelevent. And to prove my point, your "irrelevent" above simply shows your ignorance, not your intelligence. It was irrelevent to you because you are apparently too enamored with yourself to understand the point. If you had a more relevent argument to make you should have made it instead of sniveling about it being presented wrong, while pretending to have some measure of superior intellect. LOL ... You still don't get it, do you? -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
... 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. He was asked a pretty open, generic question about the relationship between sovereign tribes and the government. The answer was that the tribes are sovereign with all that implies, yet the government has a duty to help out with job programs, education and so on. I haven't read the question recently but I don't remember this as a pointed question that needed sidestepping. I don't think anybody really even started out calling this controversial. It was just the first 10 seconds of fumbling around for the right words that made the video. dwhite |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
... I still haven't seen you admit that the President is a reasonably intelligent man with whom you just disagree. Or is it so important to you that he's not that you'll just ignore the backup info you asked for? Give it up. You can't talk sense to some people, and often you find out they aren't what they purport to be. I think some these people (not necessarily in this group) turn out to be socialists that do not like America and want to see it become euthanized, I mean Europeanized. dwhite |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know. But I bet it was pretty high.
Uh huh. Which do you think is more likely? a) they're sooooo high that Kerry feels it will embarass the President if they were released, so he's holding them back out of consideration for the President. b) they're around or lower than the President's and there is no way in hell he'll release them and suffer by comparison Yeah, right. They were so low Yale accepted him without legacy status as Bush had. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
It was irrelevent to you because you are apparently too enamored with
yourself to understand the point. If you had a more relevent argument to make you should have made it instead of sniveling about it being presented wrong, while pretending to have some measure of superior intellect. LOL ... You still don't get it, do you? LOL.. I'm laughing at *you* swingman. Jeff Harper Tampa, FL |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know you're not responding to my post, but the point is that we don't have to have an "opinion" about the SAT scores. They are what they are and they put the President somewhere between the 80th and 90th percentiles of all SAT takers. Simonton is using who knows what to come to some pretty strong conclusions based on the fact that I'll bet he's never been within 1000 yards of the President. I still haven't seen you admit that the President is a reasonably intelligent man with whom you just disagree. Or is it so important to you that he's not that you'll just ignore the backup info you asked for? Okay, that's fairly reasonable. Re the SAT score, I have and will again acknowledge that Bush's SAT score was higher than I expected. I will also agree he's reasonably intelligent, if by reasonably intelligent you mean average range or slightly above. I still maintain that his intelligence and ability are both below the minimum preferable levels for President of 280 million people and leader of a world of 6 billion. Jeff Harper Tampa, FL |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dan White" wrote in message et...
"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 Hey, you're the one saying he's an evil-dooooer .... I never said evil. I said power hungry, abusive and intending to carry out historically unforgivable acts. Furthermore, I wrote as a member of the wrecker community at large, not necessarily a liberal. I'm very fiscally conservative in fact. It really burns me to see the GOP wagging their "tax and spend" pointer finger at the democrats when they commit an even more aggregious sin: "borrow and spend". Hypocrits don't walk the walk of smaller government and lower taxes. I could see borrowing in the case of Reagan trying to bankrupt the USSR by spending on mil. I can't see it today. If any single person ran the books the way Washington does they would be either in jail or else swimming with the fishes. Although no GOP talking head would ever use the phrase "trickle down economics" because it's passe, it is in fact the Bush economic policy. Additionally, Bush's advisors are way out of touch. I heard one of them pointing out that Kerry's tax plan to cut the cuts for the 200k club is in accurate and it will really affect "taxpayers making as little as $147,000 per year" --- I guess they are looking to pick up the votes of those liberals making between 147 and 200k that thought they would skate by --- probably picked up the votes of all three of those voters. Ok, that was tongue in cheek -- there are probably six. Most other folks below $147k are unwilling to empathasize. It's just another election with nobody to vote *FOR* 'cept in a few local races. hex -30- |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
LOL.. I'm laughing at *you* swingman. Jeff Harper Tampa, FL Ah, c'mon, Jeff ... what's really laughable is that with 27 total posts in the Wrec, and not a single one on-topic, you've been bitch slapped time after time and found you can't hold your own here so you start with the juvenile crap ... go back and play in your other newsgroups, TROLL. http://groups.google.com/groups?num=...&btnG=S earch -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:14:20 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
wrote: .... snip 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 BTW, speaking of SAT scores, what was Kerry's score? As far as I can tell, he won't release it. Is he hiding something? Perhaps the same reason that he won't sign form 180 to release the rest of his military records. I don't know. But I bet it was pretty high. Gore's was 1355. Verbal 625, Math 730. Not that Gore's score is relevant, unless, of course, Kerry is going to reach behind his head, pull off a rubber mask and reveal that it's actually Gore whose been running all along, but it's kind of funny that here the brilliant Gore, with such high scores flunked out of both Harvard Law School and Harvard Divinity school, while the "dumber" Bush managed to earn an MBA from Harvard Business School. |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:17:46 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
wrote: 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." 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. What kind of opinion? Oh, yeah, "educated opinion of a professional in the field." That beats *your* opinion, I bet. If not, please link your vita. You obviously failed to grasp my point. I'm not surprised, it is a subtle point that requires a bit of thought. My point was the fact that you took a fact stated in a particular reference and used the presence of that fact to validate the opinions expressed in the reference. i.e, simply by the presence of something verifiable in a paper, one does not lend credence to the opinions expressed therein unless there is a clear, logical progression of logical steps can be stated that lead to a logical conclusion (which, at that point would really not be opinion, but conclusion derived from fact) Instead, the person citing the fact that "Bush had a high SAT score", then offered the opinion, "but he doesn't use his intelligence", followed by some fuzzy science psycho-babble to further expound upon said opinion. Educated opinion of a professional can apply equally well to the stated opinion of a tarot card reader -- that the card reader is a professional does not render the opinion valid nor logically correct. One could also make the statement that Simonton offered the "educated" opinon of a very biased, agenda driven partisan using his stature in the field to advance a political agenda. |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
"hex" wrote in message
om... "Dan White" wrote in message et... 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 Hey, you're the one saying he's an evil-dooooer .... I never said evil. I said power hungry, abusive and intending to carry out historically unforgivable acts. "historically unforgivable acts?" ...sounds kind of evil to me. Anyhoo, I think the country is and will be better off due to the Bush admin whether you like it or not!  Furthermore, I wrote as a member of the wrecker community at large, not necessarily a liberal. I'm very fiscally conservative in fact. It really burns me to see the GOP wagging their "tax and spend" pointer finger at the democrats when they commit an even more aggregious sin: "borrow and spend". Hypocrits don't walk the walk of smaller government and lower taxes. I could see borrowing in the case of Reagan trying to bankrupt the USSR by spending on mil. I can't see it today. If any single person ran the books the way Washington does they would be either in jail or else swimming with the fishes. Agreed 100%. dwhite |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news:1096427857.wEt9va8Id4NnXkiLazj6pQ@teranews... Not that Gore's score is relevant, unless, of course, Kerry is going to reach behind his head, pull off a rubber mask and reveal that it's actually Gore whose been running all along, but it's kind of funny that here the brilliant Gore, with such high scores flunked out of both Harvard Law School and Harvard Divinity school, while the "dumber" Bush managed to earn an MBA from Harvard Business School. Not to mention the all-powerful master debator Al Gore got thumped in 3 debates against that dummy Bush. dwhite |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
... I don't know. But I bet it was pretty high. Uh huh. Which do you think is more likely? a) they're sooooo high that Kerry feels it will embarass the President if they were released, so he's holding them back out of consideration for the President. b) they're around or lower than the President's and there is no way in hell he'll release them and suffer by comparison Yeah, right. They were so low Yale accepted him without legacy status as Bush had. The fact is, he hasn't released the scores, so until he does, we won't know for sure. But I know politicians. If Kerry got a 1400, that would be seen as an advantage over Bush. If there's an advantage that could be had by releasing them, you can bet that the test score would be miraculously uncovered by CBS News. todd |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dan White" wrote in message t... Not to mention the all-powerful master debator Al Gore got thumped in 3 debates against that dummy Bush. I think what really killed Gore was that every one was sick of hearing about that Top Secret retirement plan he so commonly referred to as the " Loooock Booox". |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:48:38 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote: "Jeff Harper" wrote in message ... I don't know. But I bet it was pretty high. Uh huh. Which do you think is more likely? a) they're sooooo high that Kerry feels it will embarass the President if they were released, so he's holding them back out of consideration for the President. b) they're around or lower than the President's and there is no way in hell he'll release them and suffer by comparison Yeah, right. They were so low Yale accepted him without legacy status as Bush had. The fact is, he hasn't released the scores, so until he does, we won't know for sure. But I know politicians. If Kerry got a 1400, that would be seen as an advantage over Bush. If there's an advantage that could be had by releasing them, you can bet that the test score would be miraculously uncovered by CBS News. Hey, if they can't uncover them, they'll generate 'em. ;-) todd |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Leon" wrote in message ... "Dan White" wrote in message t... Not to mention the all-powerful master debator Al Gore got thumped in 3 debates against that dummy Bush. I think what really killed Gore was that every one was sick of hearing about that Top Secret retirement plan he so commonly referred to as the " Loooock Booox". and all the sighing. Bottom line is he got out played. dwhite |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Swingman" "Fletis Humplebacker" Whether you feel it was a misguided argument is irrelevent. And to prove my point, your "irrelevent" above simply shows your ignorance, not your intelligence. It was irrelevent to you because you are apparently too enamored with yourself to understand the point. If you had a more relevent argument to make you should have made it instead of sniveling about it being presented wrong, while pretending to have some measure of superior intellect. LOL ... You still don't get it, do you? I do indeed. You wanted to argue about arguing. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
"Swingman" "Fletis Humplebacker" Whether you feel it was a misguided argument is irrelevent. And to prove my point, your "irrelevent" above simply shows your ignorance, not your intelligence. It was irrelevent to you because you are apparently too enamored with yourself to understand the point. If you had a more relevent LOL ... You still don't get it, do you? I do indeed. You wanted to argue about arguing. Only if it's "relevent" (sic). -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 7/10/04 |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
om... (Doug Miller) wrote in message om... In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in message ... .... Sorry, but that isn't true. 98th percentile qualifies one for membership in Mensa, and the minimum SAT to qualify for Mensa at that time was 1250, i.e that was the 98th percentile. 1400 would have been at the 99-point-something percentile. Ol Dubya hanging out playing puzzle games with the Mensa guys -- that's a good one! Well, his scores, as reported in earlier posts in this thread, would seem to qualify him. I'm not sure what you find so amusing. What were *your* scores? Heh, none of your business. Same position as Kerry on his SATs and the rest of his military records. Must be hiding something. |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message om... In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote: (Doug Miller) wrote in message ... .... Sorry, but that isn't true. 98th percentile qualifies one for membership in Mensa, and the minimum SAT to qualify for Mensa at that time was 1250, i.e that was the 98th percentile. 1400 would have been at the 99-point-something percentile. Ol Dubya hanging out playing puzzle games with the Mensa guys -- that's a good one! Well, his scores, as reported in earlier posts in this thread, would seem to qualify him. I'm not sure what you find so amusing. What were *your* scores? Heh, none of your business. Imagine my surprise... -- 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. |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Once again, Larry. Having spent 20 years or so of listening carefully to
politicians at all levels, taken as a whole I'd rate Bush's answer on tribal sovereignty comes out somewhere above average. You've got no bloody idea what politicians sound like most of the time. What you get are carefully selected sound bites and quotes -- most of which are designed to make the politicians sound good, or at least coherent. Believe me, most of those incisive responses you read in the newspaper sounded a at least as bad as Bush did before the reporters and editors cleaned them up. As such things go, I'd even rate the Bush reply moderately responsive. Let me be clear on this. I do not like politicians. As a class they make me break out in hives. I'm not real fond of George W. Bush. But I am astonished at the lengths to which some people will go to bad-mouth him. In rec.freaking.woodworking, no less. --RC Larry Jaques wrote: 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. - |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| HELP: Sony SLV-595HF VCR Video Lock problem! | Electronics Repair | |||
| Video card damaging CRT monitor? | Electronics Repair | |||
| SONY Watchman FDL-3500 LCD video problem | Electronics Repair | |||
| Samsung tv ,,no audio no video from tuner | Electronics Repair | |||
| HELP tuning video | UK diy | |||
Linear Mode
