28 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Wrong. I don't dislike Conyers at all..I never knew of him till I saw that video. Now I know he's stupid, but I certainly don't dislike him.
Okay; I'm sorry if I didn't take your question seriously enough.
What can I tell you? The idea of a less than intelligent President bothers me. The idea of a less than intelligent Senator doesn't. Am I inconsistent? Maybe. Senators are one in a hundred. House members are one in 435. Most of them simply vote how they think their constituencies want them to. T her intelligence.
I assure you that I don't like John Conyers any more than you do.
"Most of them simply vote how they think their constituencies want them to."
Wouldn't their constituents be upset if that was not the case? So they aren't "executive" material if they follow their voters interests? Strange..strange..strange concept.
One final try for logic: You really think the better good is when an intelligent president only gets presented with stupid bills written by stupid people? Really? 😕
Now I'm done with you on this subject.
edit - to add quotes
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by MacSwain===Wouldn't their constituents be upset if that was not the case? So they aren't "executive" material if they follow their voters interests? Strange..strange..strange concept.===
Wrong. I don't dislike Conyers at all..I never knew of him till I saw that video. Now I know he's stupid, but I certainly don't dislike him.
[b]"Most of them simply vote how they think their constituencies want them to."
Wouldn't their constituents be upset if that was not the case? So they aren't "executive" material if they follow their voters in ...[text shortened]... people? Really? 😕
Now I'm done with you on this subject.
edit - to add quotes[/b]
It's not that every Senator is not executive material. It's that they are not necessarily executive material because they are Senators. Some are. some are not. The ones who are often try to run for President. The ones who are not still often try to run for President, but won't be getting my vote. However, either way, they do not have to be executive material to serve in Congress.
===You really think the better good is when an intelligent president only gets presented with stupid bills written by stupid people?===
There are plenty of intelligent people in Congress. The people who head the key committees ought to be intelligent (even though Charles Rangel is head of Ways and Means, which is unfortunate). There is plenty of room for dumb people as well in Congress, however. Jim Bunning right now has maybe a few more marbles than Jack Nicholson in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and the government is not really adversely impacted by that fact alone.
===Now I'm done with you on this subject.===
Okay. See you on a different subject.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by utherpendragon“God, soul, independence, drilling for oil and gas, ethics reform, no lobbyists, conservative choices, work ethic, debt ridden stimulus dollars, heavy hand of federal government, states rights, 10th amendment, national security, support troops, energy independence, I don’t care what party they are in or no party at all”
explain why you feel she has a mediocre intellect,and who are you referring to when you "we already tried that..."
These are a few of the things S. Palin unabashedly named during her parting addresses. Can there be any doubt as to why the left is driven absolutely mad in their efforts to destroy her?
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76It's more a case of calling stupid, stupid.
That, in a nut shell, is why the Democrats did so poorly for so long. This attitude that "you must be stupid if you vote for the guy we don't like."
Be concerned if you like.
Just for laughs, please tell me who was the last GOP Presidential candidate that you do consider intelligent.
I'm not a Democratic partisan. JFK seemed quite stupid, too, although he presented as less of an obvious thug than Reagan.
Who was the last intelligent US president? I don't know. Someone before WW2. Probably Theodore Roosevelt. Not sure about FDR. The thing is that intelligence isn't really required for presidency anymore. It remains to be seen if Obama, who isn't exactly a genius but seems so in comparison to Bush, will buck the trend.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBased on his SAT scores, GW Bush should have an IQ in the range of 125-130.
It's more a case of calling stupid, stupid.
I'm not a Democratic partisan. JFK seemed quite stupid, too, although he presented as less of an obvious thug than Reagan.
Who was the last intelligent US president? I don't know. Someone before WW2. Probably Theodore Roosevelt. Not sure about FDR. The thing is that intelligence isn't really required fo ...[text shortened]... Obama, who isn't exactly a genius but seems so in comparison to Bush, will buck the trend.
Nixon's is reported as 143 or 155. Kennedy, who beat him in the election of 1960, had an IQ of 117, about average. Gerry Ford's score of 121 is slightly above average, yet he demonstrated the least intelligence of our 20th Century presidents. The highest actual IQ of any president in the 20th century is Jimmy Carter's 175. FDR's estimated IQ is 147.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonSAT scores can't compete with alcohol and cocaine. People aren't always born stupid.
Based on his SAT scores, GW Bush should have an IQ in the range of 125-130.
Nixon's is reported as 143 or 155. Kennedy, who beat him in the election of 1960, had an IQ of 117, about average. Gerry Ford's score of 121 is slightly above average, yet he demonstrated the least intelligence of our 20th Century presidents. The highest actual IQ of any president in the 20th century is Jimmy Carter's 175. FDR's estimated IQ is 147.
Kennedy didn't seem all that smart. I forgot about Nixon, he was intelligent. I somewhat dishonestly avoided mentioning Carter because that name frequently provokes mouth froth, for some reason.
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageLOL 🙂
SAT scores can't compete with alcohol and cocaine. People aren't always born stupid.
Kennedy didn't seem all that smart. I forgot about Nixon, he was intelligent. I somewhat dishonestly avoided mentioning Carter because that name frequently provokes mouth froth, for some reason.
good humor!
28 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Hyuk, hyuk, Chuckles.
You're right.
You're not a partisan Democrat.
You're just a bit of a snob.
My apologies. 😛
Do you think you've successfully vindicated Ronald Reagan's intelligence?
How would you defend your dismissal of Palin against charges of snobbery?
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageTo who? she's Pro-lifee, Pro-death people? Murderer's? Child-killers?
Hyuk, hyuk, Chuckles.
Do you think you've successfully vindicated Ronald Reagan's intelligence?
How would you defend your dismissal of Palin against charges of snobbery?
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by MacSwainAdditionally to my previous post[/b] I was remiss in not pointing out, from my viewpoint, S. Palin is in crossfire. The fact is, the right has and is attacking her with vitriol that equals that of the left.
“God, soul, independence, drilling for oil and gas, ethics reform, no lobbyists, conservative choices, work ethic, debt ridden stimulus dollars, heavy hand of federal government, states rights, 10th amendment, national security, support troops, energy independence, I don’t care what party they are in or no party at all”
These are a few of the things S. ...[text shortened]... there be any doubt as to why the left is driven absolutely mad in their efforts to destroy her?
Since S. Palin was the only reason the Republicans could fill a hall last year, the only logical reason for attacks from the right seems to be she has no qualms in attacking the Republican machine and they fear her popularity and influence with their base.
After the previous election, the right, (supposedly "her" McCain team) started attacking, making spurious comments before the ballots were sealed away. Also, republican candidates who lost to McCain also turned their guns on her rather than the left. Out of fear?
Somehow I don’t think she will be the type who keeps their head down. This should be fun!
28 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI feel no need to vindicate Ronald Reagan's intelligence. I have not seen a logical attack against him; the paltry list of policy critiques and unconfirmed meaningless incidences posted above notwithstanding. Watch his 1976 GOP convention speech. Watch his debates against Carter or Mondale. I'm perfectly satisfied that he was intelligent.
Hyuk, hyuk, Chuckles.
Do you think you've successfully vindicated Ronald Reagan's intelligence?
How would you defend your dismissal of Palin against charges of snobbery?
His record in maintaining sustained economic growth and facing down Communism speaks for itself. I'm sure you and some of the others will disagree. Fine. I don't have the time or the interest right now to go over the Reagan years again.
If I realized that you believed that every American President since TR was unintelligent, then I assure you I would not have answered your question about Reagan. Measured by that standard, there really is nothing to discuss.
Saying one politician is not intelligent enough to be a competent President is not snobbery. Saying that no American President since TR was intelligent is. If you disagree with that, fine. I think the distinction could not be any more clear.
28 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Okey-dokey. Hitchens does list some howlers that are easily confirmed, but whatever.
I feel no need to vindicate Ronald Reagan's intelligence.
Snobbery would be having something against stupid people. I don't at all; I brought up Reagan merely because you think Palin would suck because she's stupid -- well, Reagan was pretty stupid, but he and Palin both share a certain ruthless cunning that can get a person pretty far in politics. It's the suckers with scruples like Carter that get tarred and feathered, isn't it.
The following question is designed to help me understand you better. How would you rate Reagan's performance as Governor of California against Schwarzenegger's?
28 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76It worked for Ronald Regan!!🙄
Why does she need 3+ full years to run for President?
Maybe she's quitting to be a stay at home grandma?
Personally, I hope she doesn't run. I mean, she seems like a nice person and she's hot for her age, but we already tried that mediocre intellect for President thing. This time, let's run someone a little brighter.
29 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageTo borrow a line from the great movie, A Few Good Men*:
The following question is designed to help me understand you better. How would you rate Reagan's performance as Governor of California against Schwarzenegger's?
[Jack Nicholson voice] My answer is I don't have the first damn clue. [/Jack Nicholson voice]
Reagan ended his term as governor of California before I was born; and I live in New York, not in California. I couldn't tell you the first thing about Reagan's term as governor of California other than what I can read on Wikipedia.
*
7:34