How many ways are there to score a man´s inteligence?
The scale i´m thinking of, and the one i used myself, goes from around 80 to around 180.

Yeah, well, i was curious about that, so i took a little search tour through the net.
Seems the source for Bush´s 91 was some article from a democrat web site.
The Clinton IQ apraisal, and i enphasize "apraisal, was taken from that same article. I believe a lot of this is just partizanship, dems against reps, each side slandering the other.

http://www.bushnews.com/bushiq.htm

http://lists.ccil.org/pipermail/sophia/2001q3/001470.html

http://www.lovenstein.org/report/

I know Bush is dumb, i don´t dispute that, i just don´t think he is THAT dumb. And neither is Clinton THAT smart. None has undertaken a controled IQ test, so we are all just guessing. For example, i took one of those tests on the net, and i came out with an IQ of 135. I´m no genius. Real genius score 160, 170 at best. Scoring 180 is almost impossible. I have never heard of any IQ that high. And judging Clinton´s performance, i definitely don´t place him above Einstein.
Grad students have an average of 115 to 120 IQ, highschool grads have 110 IQ. There are even some female gorillas that reach the 90 IQ. To say Bush has 91 IQ places him at the same level as the smartest of chimps! How many chimps do you know that know how to say "evildoers"?
Well, he does say "nuculer" instead of nuclear...
:indeed:

http://www.cruel.com/discuss/viewTopic.php/64900

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

IQ really doesn't mean much. If I have an IQ of 140 and someone else has an IQ of 120, does that mean I'm smarter than them? No. Clinton has an IQ of 182, but that's probably because he is generally better at taking IQ tests than others. The IQ tests are far from flawless.

__________________

here are my reasons for hating bush with pashion:
1. he stole the election from gore

2. the economey went to the dogs after he took office

3. the mess he made with iraq

4. our armed forces are bad seince he took office

5. civilians keep dying because of that mess, including the beheading of nick burg by iraqies and the abouse of iraqie prisoners by our solders


so basecly he is making ahuge mess with iraq and the wor on terrorisem

I have never completed an IQ test, generally freeze up during testing and other than that do lousy under pressure. Yet, I speak 3 languages and manage projects well past a million dollars. In my book, IQ tests, tests all together and college degrees are just a mere sign of ones need to prove oneself. A college degree or a high score on the TAAS, TASP, SAT doesn't mean a darn thing. One has to prove what you have learned (or not) in real life and "street smarts" are not what makes you successful past a certain point.....
For all I care I probably count as retard since I don't finish an IQ test....

__________________
_____________________________________________

I think I took an IQ test once as a child but don't remember the results. Just for fun I just went to http://www.iqtest.com/ and took a quick 13 minute test and got 159 (try it for fun).

As can be seen in this thread (and the above test), IQ tests don't mean a thing when you want to compare two people unless you sit them both down and use the same test under the same conditions and so on... And in the end, what's it mean anyway?

Oh, sorry, we were talking about W. Hmmm... I don't hate him but it's painful to listen to him. I guess I don't care enough to hate him but would sure like to see him ousted later this year.

I had a score of 141 without understanding a lot of the questions (obviously english isn't my native language...). That can't be accurate, can it?

The president of the US really doesn't earn that much, particularly if you consider the hours they typically "work". Clinton actually signed the legislation effectively giving a raise to all future presidents. He doubled the salary from $200,000 to $400,000. I do realize that $400,000 is quite a lot of money, but there are still plenty of opportunities for intelligent individuals to earn that much, if not many times more.

I should also point out that I do not believe in compensation for ANY public office. If you are serving the public, you should be doing it for free.


Bush Jr. still had to get to where he is today mainly on his own. Bush Sr. could not have possibly given him every office he's ever had, or the experiences that helped to propel him to the front of the Republican party, and eventually into the presidency. I think it's a bit too easy to fall back on the 'daddy did this for him' theory.

That's a bit old to be bringing up. There isn't any difinitive answer to whether or not Bush should have won, or Gore should have won. Argue as much as you like, but there is no difinitive answer to this question. I would also point out that Bush did not steal anything. If anything, he was elected by a mistake in the voting system. Theft is not something that should be mentioned here.

The US economy runs in cycles. Each cycle takes months to years to fully set up. The policies (tax cuts, etc) that Bush has implemented in his first 4 years won't fully impact the US economy during that 4 year time span. The economy tanked because of policies that Clinton enacted.

In what sense? Bush gave a pay raise to the armed forces. He's been very supportive of the US troops. How exactly are they "bad"?

Nick Berg's incident is a tragedy, as is every death that has taken place. The civilians are there for either private security or for rebuilding efforts. Bush has absolutely nothing to do directly or indirectly with their deaths. They are in harms way by their own choosing. It's different than that of a soldier who has been sent to Iraq on a mission. Nick made the choice himself to go to Iraq.


I think the biggest difference that I see with most people is that they actually hate Bush - the man. I may not like all of his policies, but I certainly don't hate him as a person.

It's extremely easy to 'coach from the stands'. None of us will ever truly know the pressures of being the leader of a nation. None of us will ever know all the information that the world leaders are privy to. None of us will fully understand the impact of every decision that world leaders must make on a daily basis. Yet, it's some sort of God given right to criticize and rant/rave over how we'd run things if we were in office.

Being critical of a decision is fine. Disagreeing with a decision is fine as well. But some people take things a bit too far and get so worked up over things. That's just not the way to live your life.

I don't like everything that Bush has said/done, but I'm much more concerned with my own life and how I'm living it, than to sit around hating Bush.

I could not disagree more. To cut the salary to public officials to zero would turn the country into more of a plutocracy than it already is.

I don't know what Bush would be doing if he didn't have a powerful father, but he certainly wouldn't be president. His move to the front of the Republican party seems to me as much to do with his reactionary beliefs and the perception that he can be lead by the nose, than for his abilities.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

If public officials were not paid, then the person deciding to run for office would do so not for love of money or power, but because they want to make a difference in the world.

To be honest, I think Arnold is a perfect example of this. He doesn't need the money or the power that he's getting from running California. If I'm not mistaken, he specifically said he would not draw a salary from the position. He had every right to, but isn't. That's the kind of leaders we need in politics. He's not there for the money or the power. He's there because he wants to make things better for everyone.

Politicians today are there for money or power. That's all they look out for. Remove the money aspect, and we would see an entirely different kind of politician wanting to run for office. We'd see people who actually cared about their consituents, and wanted to make things better.

You are one hell of an optimist. The only thing that would happen at that time would be that they are succeptable (even more than today) to donations from special interest groups and other organizations. Now if you want to do away with that as well that leads us to the few multi millionaires running for office that can afford not to be gainfully employed!


Oy Veh! We saw 60 years ago when an Austrian goes to another country and does politics for the masses....

Removing the money will only make them corrupter than they already are and one that will look out for his personal interests.
I have yet to meet some oil millionaire down here in Houston that gave a crap about the 5th ward (poor black part of town)! I think alturisticly motivated rich are extremely rare!

__________________
_____________________________________________