Pol: Short video of your president

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message

> As for Jeff, I don't think he's even a woodworker. He looks to be a
> drive-by troll since he has never posted anything here ever that is
> on-topic. A cursory look through his history shows that he does the same
> thing in about a half-dozen other groups.

That was clearly obvious a couple of weeks back ... NOW, we've all learned
that the only way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, right?


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

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> 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...
>
>Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
>SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.

If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you should post your
own.

--
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.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:28:17 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here.
>
>If you find yourself running into "morons" you might take a look in the
>mirror and see if you can spot what might be attracting them.
>


Methinks Messr Harper equates, "disagrees with my opinions" with "moron".

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:56:44 -0400, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]>
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=20040114-074349-3947r
>
>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 Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:17:46 -0400, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]>
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.

On 28 Sep 2004 19:28:49 -0700, [email protected] (hex) wrote:

>"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> "hex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > > >
>> > >
... snip
>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".

That is just more than a slight bit of hyperbole there. The dems were
never "fiscally responsible" with their "tax and spend" policies, they just
engaged in strangling the ability of the end of the economic spectrum
capapble of contributing to expansion and economic growth. The dems
*never* balanced their taxing excesses with their spending binges, they
always spent more than brought in. The "borrow and spend" you talk about
is merely another democrat talking point that attempts to make the tax
relief a zero-sum game -- a theory that was soundly disproved by the Reagan
tax cuts.

That said, I'm very disappointed by the "new democrats" in the Republican
party (and that sometimes includes Bush) who believe that to remain in
power, they must maintain their democrat predecessors' propensity to
irresponsibly increase entitlement spending on programs neither called out
nor specified in the constitution.

>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.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that if you allow those who
are making money to keep more of it, they will invest that money to make
even more money. To do so, this results in expansion of businesses that
results in hiring more people that results in more wages being paid out?
The example of the Rockefellers, the Kerry's, the Kennedys, etc is a
strawman arguement -- the US does not tax *wealth* it taxes income. The
bulk of those making in the 200k+ range are small businesses and
entrepreneurs -- those who are actually helping the real economy expand.

> 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-

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > > 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.

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > 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.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > "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=20040114-074349-3947r), 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.

"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?

"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.

"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.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Nate "Dumber than Bush" Perkins) wrote:

>This is really not true. Any of us is free to criticize the
>president, even call him stupid as we see it, without having to prove
>whether we are "inferior" or superior to the president. He works for
>us. It's called freedom of speech.

Of course you're free to do so. I only question the wisdom of calling someone
smarter than oneself, "stupid".

--
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.

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That probably makes sense to you, doesn't it? Moron.
>
> Bush's intellect is relevant to all of us. Nate's is not.
>
> Do you need me to draw you pictures?
>
> What are *your* SAT and IQ scores, shit-for-brains? I can tell from your
> posts and the way you resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than argue on
> merit that you are none too bright.
>
> Jeff Harper
> Tampa, FL

Jeff,

Why don't you just admit the everyone that doesn't agree with your anti-Bush
and pro-Kerry position are morons, and leave it at that? Or maybe, just
leave?

Whenever someone nullifies your argument, you either change course or resort
to name calling. That later does not help your position whatsoever, makes
you sound like a twelve year old school yard bully.

I would wager that even had Bush's SAT scores topped 1300, would still
consider him a moron, as well as anyone supporting him. :)

GH

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
> people did.

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

> > 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?

> >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?"
>
> You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.
>
> > http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00/00/09/bush-sovereignty.mov
>
> JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
> Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity. If
> you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
> soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."
>
> Say what?! ... ;)

He was mocking Bush.

When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded: "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." Jesse
Jackson makes light of Bush's remarks at the conference and we speak with
Mark Trahant, the reporter who asked Bush the question. [includes rush
transcript]
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/10/149259&mode=thread&tid=25

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:30:28 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:
>
> >> > 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?
>
> 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.

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?

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?

> ... and just how "intelligent" was getting your knob polished in the Oval
> Office, getting caught, then attempting to deny it?

That was foolish, agreed. So what? We are talking about Bush's lack of
intelligence, not Clinton's not yours.


> You're either really naive, or about the same wattage, to believe that
> "intelligence" is a prerequisite for the job.

It is *your* ignorance/stupidity is shining brightly.

Of course we want an intelligent man in office. Only someone with
remarkably poor judgment would not consider intelligence important to the
job.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Harper" wrote in message
> >
> > > >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?"
> > >
> > > You didn't ... apparently Florida was quite incapable of that.
> > >
> > > > http://viral.3dge.net/attachments/00/00/09/bush-sovereignty.mov
> > >
> > > JESSE JACKSON: "The President explained. You just didn't understand.
> > > Sovereignty is sovereignty. You understand? It's like in sovereignity.
> If
> > > you are on a reservation, you have been soverized. Your Ph.D. is in
> > > soverbication. You understand? I don't think you understand."
> > >
> > > Say what?! ... ;)
> >
> > He was mocking Bush.
>
> No shit, shinola?

Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here. By the
way, the right-wing groups all over the Internet are bad mouthing Jackson,
as if he wasn't mocking Bush at the time, and they're giving Bush a pass.

> > When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st
> <snippage>
>
> Duh ... where did you suppose my quote of old JJ came from?

One of the sites attacking Jackson.

"WoodMangler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Florida Patriot did say:
> > 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?"
>
> Hate to change the subject, but with regard to issues that actually matter
> in the presidential race, where do you stand? Do you think that either
> candidate reflects the values of someone with a "Patriot" handle? Do you
> think that either candidate, once in office, will ACT in a way befitting
> an American patriot?
>
> My personal view is that there's not a nickel's worth of difference. Both
> will spend our hard earned dollars like it's going out of style. Both will
> work to expand their party's power base at the expense of others. Both
> will continue to press for more legislation that infringes on the rights
> of citizens. Both will bungle foreign affairs.
> Neither one, nor anyone I can name from the two major parties, will work
> to advance the freedoms and welfare of the average American.
>
> There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.
>
> www.lp.org

We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils if
you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as no
vote.

I believe Kerry is superior, but if I thought they were the same, "not a
nickle's worth of difference," I would vote Bush out of office. The message
to future Presidents is then that they have to be more responsive to the
people if they want a second term. Keep voting the incumbent out until we
get someone worthy in office.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> > 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.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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?
> >
> > > ... and just how "intelligent" was getting your knob polished in the
> Oval
> > > Office, getting caught, then attempting to deny it?
> >
> > That was foolish, agreed. So what? We are talking about Bush's lack of
> > intelligence, not Clinton's not yours.
>
> Closer to what was exhibited in the "1 out of 6 billion people" statement
> above, I'd say.

Moron. Do you really think anyone thought the election was world-wide? You
are presenting a strawman argument.

>
> > > You're either really naive, or about the same wattage, to believe that
> > > "intelligence" is a prerequisite for the job.

You're such a bright bulb!


> >
> > It is *your* ignorance/stupidity is shining brightly.
>
> Of course, I am just another one of the "morons around here", but is
English
> your first language?
>
> > Of course we want an intelligent man in office. Only someone with
> > remarkably poor judgment would not consider intelligence important to
the
> > job.
>
> We had one of those last time ... see above.
>
> I'll say it again ... you'd have to be a practicing Indian affairs lawyer
to
> be conversant with the nuances of "tribal sovereignty". What you really
> meant to say in your original post, in place of "intelligence", was
> "ignorance" .


Almost anyone could have answered that question better than Bush did.

And, yes, Bush should have some idea of government-indian relations.

> >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

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1096250248.cbxzOQwHzWP30IHB+mXLNQ@teranews...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:28:17 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here.
> >
> >If you find yourself running into "morons" you might take a look in the
> >mirror and see if you can spot what might be attracting them.
> >
>
>
> Methinks Messr Harper equates, "disagrees with my opinions" with
"moron".

Not at all. And notice I did not call him a moron, but he did call me one.

I will, however, observe that you aren't particularly clever, though you
fancy yourself such.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > >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.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > "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=20040114-074349-3947r), 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=20040114-074349-3947r

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

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > > "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=20040114-074349-3947r), 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.

> >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 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.

> > 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

> 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

On 29 Sep 2004 22:47:30 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
> SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.

You know, I don't have a _clue_ what my SATs were. And Mensa is overrated.
I'm not sure how either of these are relevant. I'm more interested in
knowing why Kerry claims to care about terrorism and stuff, when he missed
75%+ of the senate intelligence committee meetings that it was his job to
be at. I'm more interested in why he brought up his Vietnam service when
there are _so_ many questions about his actions during, and after, the
war. I'm more interested in why he said, then didn't say, that he had
a "Chinese Assault Rifle", and then says that he didn't say it, an
aide said it, and it's a Russian bolt-action rifle, and broken besides.
I'm also interested in why he said that at the same time he was saying
that letting the "assault weapons" ban expire would help terrorists
make Americans less safe. A jaded and cynical voter (such as myself)
would suspect that the "I have a Chinese assault weapon" thing was an
attempt to schmooze a gun-friendly magazine, in an attempt to say "Look,
I'm one of y'all folks, don't worry about my long history of being Sarah
Brady's lapdog, I'm one of you really" that he got caught lying about.

If he had a message, stuck to it, and didn't pull slicky-boy tricks
like the last Democrat who was in that office, he might get more respect.
But, he's too similar, too soon after Clinton, and that taste is still
in peoples' mouths.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > > 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.

In other words, you don't know shit but are prepared to believe some crap
you yourself fabricated.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > LOL.. I'm laughing at *you* swingman.

>
> Ah, c'mon, Jeff ...

I'm still laughing at you.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> Same position as Kerry on his SATs and the rest of his military records.
> Must be hiding something.


You really are a moron. Kerry got into Yale without being a legacy as Bush
was.

Yeah, he's a closet idiot. Right.

Moron.

>Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
> >SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.
>
> If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you should post
your
> own.

That probably makes sense to you, doesn't it? Moron.

Bush's intellect is relevant to all of us. Nate's is not.

Do you need me to draw you pictures?

What are *your* SAT and IQ scores, shit-for-brains? I can tell from your
posts and the way you resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than argue on
merit that you are none too bright.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

Do you collect right-wing talk show propaganda? Falsehoods, half-truths,
out of context statements, inaccurate paraphrasing, deliberate
mischaracterization, outright lies.

If there's anything legitimate to your posts, it's lost in the load of
bullshit you shovel.



"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 29 Sep 2004 22:47:30 -0700, Nate Perkins <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
> > SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.
>
> You know, I don't have a _clue_ what my SATs were. And Mensa is
overrated.
> I'm not sure how either of these are relevant. I'm more interested in
> knowing why Kerry claims to care about terrorism and stuff, when he missed
> 75%+ of the senate intelligence committee meetings that it was his job to
> be at. I'm more interested in why he brought up his Vietnam service when
> there are _so_ many questions about his actions during, and after, the
> war. I'm more interested in why he said, then didn't say, that he had
> a "Chinese Assault Rifle", and then says that he didn't say it, an
> aide said it, and it's a Russian bolt-action rifle, and broken besides.
> I'm also interested in why he said that at the same time he was saying
> that letting the "assault weapons" ban expire would help terrorists
> make Americans less safe. A jaded and cynical voter (such as myself)
> would suspect that the "I have a Chinese assault weapon" thing was an
> attempt to schmooze a gun-friendly magazine, in an attempt to say "Look,
> I'm one of y'all folks, don't worry about my long history of being Sarah
> Brady's lapdog, I'm one of you really" that he got caught lying about.
>
> If he had a message, stuck to it, and didn't pull slicky-boy tricks
> like the last Democrat who was in that office, he might get more respect.
> But, he's too similar, too soon after Clinton, and that taste is still
> in peoples' mouths.
>
>

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1096428568.Qyc8CA9AZuG2uqznYbqRvQ@teranews...

> ..Educated opinion of a professional can apply
> equally well to the stated opinion of a tarot card reader

Dolt.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

"Rick Cook" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Jeff Harper wrote:
>
> > "WoodMangler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > (snip)
> > > There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.
> > >
> > > www.lp.org
> >
> > We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils
if
> > you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as
no
> > vote.
>
> > (snip)
>
> Actually Jeff, that's not true, not in most states in a presidential
election.
> You CAN vote for a third party candidate in most places and have the vote
mean
> something. What's more, it's about the ONLY election where you can do
that.
>
> The reason is our 'peculiar institution' of the electoral college. In
effect we
> elect our president by states and the vote totals matter only within the
states.
> While there are 'swing' states where the vote is extremely close, in most
cases
> one or the other candidate has a clear margin by election day.
>
> To take my example, Bush has a lock on Arizona. If he's alive and
breathing in
> November, he will carry the state and even the DNC and the Kerry campaign
have
> recognized this.
>
> What that means is that it doesn't matter in the presidential race how I
vote.
> Bush carries Arizona. So I'm free to vote my conscience by going with a
third
> party candidate.
>
> Nor is this a wasted vote by any means. It strengthens whichever party I
chose
> to vote for. Given the way our election laws work in regard to third
parties, a
> vote for a third party candidate at the top of the ticket will help that
party
> keep a place on the ballot. Even better as third parties build
'substantial'
> totals, mainstream politicians start paying more attention to them.
>
> --RC (Who hasn't decided whether to vote Libertarian out of conviction or
Peace
> and Freedom out of nostalgia.)


Rick, I suppose you are correct. For those in situations similar to yours.
In Florida it's a different story.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:14:37 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What are *your* SAT and IQ scores, shit-for-brains? I can tell from your
> posts and the way you resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than argue on
> merit that you are none too bright.

Ow. Ow ow ow ow ow. My irony detectors just asploded. Get a mirror,
Jeff, you need it.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:18:37 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you collect right-wing talk show propaganda? Falsehoods, half-truths,
> out of context statements, inaccurate paraphrasing, deliberate
> mischaracterization, outright lies.

Which specific claims that I have made (that you top-posted your response
to - smooth move there) do you disagree with? Here, I'll do all the scrolling
for you and go get 'em...

>> I'm more interested in
>> knowing why Kerry claims to care about terrorism and stuff, when he missed
>> 75%+ of the senate intelligence committee meetings that it was his job to
>> be at.

Are you saying he didn't miss those meetings, or are you saying it wasn't
his job to attend committee meetings for a committee he was on?

> I'm more interested in why he brought up his Vietnam service when
>> there are _so_ many questions about his actions during, and after, the
>> war.

Are you saying his war record isn't questionable (he admitted to war
crimes, specifically using a .50 BMG against civilians)? Are you saying
that his post-service activities aren't questionable? Throwing (someone
else's) medals over the fence and all that?

> I'm more interested in why he said, then didn't say, that he had
>> a "Chinese Assault Rifle", and then says that he didn't say it, an
>> aide said it, and it's a Russian bolt-action rifle, and broken besides.

Are you saying that he didn't give that interview, or are you saying
that he (or his aid) got the wrong rifle, or what's your disagreement with
my statement, specifically?

>> I'm also interested in why he said that at the same time he was saying
>> that letting the "assault weapons" ban expire would help terrorists
>> make Americans less safe.

Are you saying he didn't make that statement in his speech to Sarah Brady's
group, or are you saying that a flash surpressor and bayonet lug actually do
help terrorists make American's lives less safe? If "yes" to the latter,
are you serious in proposing that terrorists are buying semi-automatic
rifles, legally, on the USA'n market, rather than say the full-auto versions
they have countries full of?

>> If he had a message, stuck to it, and didn't pull slicky-boy tricks
>> like the last Democrat who was in that office, he might get more respect.
>> But, he's too similar, too soon after Clinton, and that taste is still
>> in peoples' mouths.

...and finally, are you disagreeing that Kerry lies when it's convenient,
and when caught he weasels around (oh, it's a Russian broken bolt gun,
not a Chinese assault rifle)?

Please respond with specifics to these questions rather than your usual
personal attacks and vague language. If I just see more of the same, then
it's pretty simple to discount anything at all you have to say as the
ramblings of a light-weight parrot who can't discuss actual issues. Just
like Kerry.

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:SyZ6d.4241$6f.2161@trndny02...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > Same position as Kerry on his SATs and the rest of his military
records.
> > > Must be hiding something.
> >
> >
> > You really are a moron. Kerry got into Yale without being a legacy as
> Bush
> > was.
> >
> > Yeah, he's a closet idiot. Right.
> >
> > Moron.
> >
> >
>
> You lost the argument so, as every good leftie does, you start name
calling.
> You are a real genius.


Yeah, I lost the argument. You're right. And you're right about Kerry
hiding the fact that he is not very bright.

Moron.

> >> If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you should post
> >your
> >> own.
> >
> >That probably makes sense to you, doesn't it? Moron.
> >
> >Bush's intellect is relevant to all of us. Nate's is not.
>
> Criticism of anyone's intellect is unseemly, coming from that person's
> inferiors....

Uh huh. Do you recognize, now that it's been pointed out to you, how
fallacious your above argument is? The notion that Nate should post his
scores if he's going to question Bush's.

Are you capable of recognizing and admitting it?



> >Do you need me to draw you pictures?
> >
> .. speaking of which....
>
> >What are *your* SAT and IQ scores, shit-for-brains?
>
> 1450 total: 660 verbal, 790 math. Last real IQ test I took, about 20 years
> ago, had me somewhere in the 150s. The online test at tickle.com showed me
at
> 144 this June. No idea how accurate that one is, or whether it's been
properly
> normed.
>
> For what it's worth: I was born in July 1958. I received my Bachelor of
> Science degree in May 1978 [Computer science, Butler University,
Indianapolis
> IN], at age 19 years 321 days. I looked young for my age, too. It was a
> *bitch* finding a job -- some interviewers didn't believe I was really a
> college grad. :-)

If you do say so your own self?

By the way, I went to eleven public schools before I dropped out of high
school and joined the army. I got a GED and got into college on academic
probation. My interest was learning, not grades, yet I ended up graduating
first in my class of several thousand..had a cum. g.p.a. of 4.0..yada yada
yada. So, I'm not particularly wowed by your academic background.

And I have some doubt about your accuracy--especially the IQ. Based on the
evidence you've exhibited in this thread.


> >I can tell from your
> >posts and the way you resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than argue on
> >merit that you are none too bright.
>
> Oh, this is rich. You call me "moron" and "shit-for-brains", you called
> someone else a "fucking moron" -- and then *you* accuse *me* of ad
hominems.

Yeah, I insult you. (I'm tired of taking shit politely on here.) But my
arguments, most of 'em anyway, stand on their own and don't rely on ad
hominems. Unlike yours.


> Go play somewhere else, troll.

LOL. Again an example of poor reasoning. This was a political thread.
I've discussed/argued the subject.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Miller" wrote in message
>
> > Go play somewhere else, troll.
>
> Hehe ... sounds familiar. :)
>
> I've got him killfiled now, but should've snapped to that on the very
first
> post.


Then you can't see me calling you a horse's ass now, can you?

LOL

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
> > > >SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.
> > >
> > > If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you should post
> > your
> > > own.
> >
> > That probably makes sense to you, doesn't it? Moron.
> >
> > Bush's intellect is relevant to all of us. Nate's is not.
> >
> > Do you need me to draw you pictures?
> >
> > What are *your* SAT and IQ scores, shit-for-brains? I can tell from
your
> > posts and the way you resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than argue
on
> > merit that you are none too bright.
> >
> > Jeff Harper
> > Tampa, FL
>
> You know someone's losing it when every other word is "moron" and
> "shit-for-brains". I love it when he calls someone a "moron" and then
> accuses them of "ad hominem" attacks in the same post. LOL.

My insults were "in return."

And, unlike yours, they were not the basis of my arguments. They were
supplementary.

Shit-for-brains.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UU%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >You know someone's losing it when every other word is "moron" and
> >"shit-for-brains". I love it when he calls someone a "moron" and then
> >accuses them of "ad hominem" attacks in the same post. LOL.
> >
> You're right, he's losing it, but Jeff's just a troll anyway. He's never
> posted anything on-topic here. He's also been posting the same sort of
drivel
> on alt.home.repair lately, and I've never seen him post anything on-topic
> there either.
>
> He'll disappear soon enough.

Let me ask you a question. Were my posts about the subject of this thread?

Your low-level reasoning ability is beginning to bore me.

> >> If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you should post
your
> >> own.
> >
> >And why the devil should I have to do that? Have you decided that
> >qualifications are required in order to be allowed to ridicule Dumbya?
>
> Yep. If you're gonna call somebody stupid, you oughta at least be smarter
than
> he is. Think about it, Nate: if he's stupid, but he's smarter than you...
> where does that leave you? "Dumber than Bush" -- now that's something you
can
> really be proud of, Nate.

That's piss poor reasoning, Miller. Two major flaws.


> > Somehow I don't think you are going to agree with me no matter what
> >my SAT scores were.
>
> If you're smarter than the President, I'll agree that you have the right
to
> call him stupid. I'll still think you're wrong about that, but that's a
> separate issue.

The "right to call him stupid." Again with your brilliant logic. A third
flaw.

(And by that reasoning, you'll respect my "right" to call *you* stupid.)


> >I don't care if you are a janitor or a solid state physicist: the
> >idea of Bush chimping around at a Mensa society meeting is enough to
> >make about half of us voters snicker.
>
> Somehow, I suspect I'm much more likely to encounter the President at a
Mensa
> meeting, than I am to encounter you.

Figures you'd try to work in that you are a Mensa member. And figures you'd
insult Nate again.

I hope everyone notices that Nate did NOT insult you.

I, on the other hand, call you a pretentious wunnabe elitist who can't
reason worth a shit. Both your intellect and your character are decidedly
unimpressive.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

> >> I don't care if you are a janitor or a solid state physicist: the
> >> idea of Bush chimping around at a Mensa society meeting is enough to
> >> make about half of us voters snicker.
> >
> >Why would he bother? Mensa is nothing but a puzzle solving club.
> >
> Actually, it's nothing of the sort.
>
> "Mensa has three stated purposes: to identify and foster human
intelligence
> for the benefit of humanity, to encourage research in the nature,
> characteristics and uses of intelligence, and to promote stimulating
> intellectual and social opportunities for its members. "
>
> http://www.mensa.org/info.php


Mostly pretentious, self-important elitists who associate primarily to
reassure each other that they are special. (Of course, to people like
Miller it necessarily follows that non-members are less special--inferior.
He has said he has the "right" to insult their intelligence.)

You've confirmed my suspicion that you are merely regurgitating right-wing
neo-con propaganda.

Your accusations clearly fall into the categories I already described.

And your questions presuppose falsities. I could spend 30 minutes revealing
the flaws, but what would be the point? You wouldn't absorb what I said.
You'd just start foaming at the mouth and furiously tap out some other
twisted reply. And I imagine only one or two others would read the
subthread.





"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:18:37 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Do you collect right-wing talk show propaganda? Falsehoods,
half-truths,
> > out of context statements, inaccurate paraphrasing, deliberate
> > mischaracterization, outright lies.
>
> Which specific claims that I have made (that you top-posted your response
> to - smooth move there) do you disagree with? Here, I'll do all the
scrolling
> for you and go get 'em...
>
> >> I'm more interested in
> >> knowing why Kerry claims to care about terrorism and stuff, when he
missed
> >> 75%+ of the senate intelligence committee meetings that it was his job
to
> >> be at.
>
> Are you saying he didn't miss those meetings, or are you saying it wasn't
> his job to attend committee meetings for a committee he was on?
>
> > I'm more interested in why he brought up his Vietnam service when
> >> there are _so_ many questions about his actions during, and after, the
> >> war.
>
> Are you saying his war record isn't questionable (he admitted to war
> crimes, specifically using a .50 BMG against civilians)? Are you saying
> that his post-service activities aren't questionable? Throwing (someone
> else's) medals over the fence and all that?
>
> > I'm more interested in why he said, then didn't say, that he had
> >> a "Chinese Assault Rifle", and then says that he didn't say it, an
> >> aide said it, and it's a Russian bolt-action rifle, and broken besides.
>
> Are you saying that he didn't give that interview, or are you saying
> that he (or his aid) got the wrong rifle, or what's your disagreement with
> my statement, specifically?
>
> >> I'm also interested in why he said that at the same time he was saying
> >> that letting the "assault weapons" ban expire would help terrorists
> >> make Americans less safe.
>
> Are you saying he didn't make that statement in his speech to Sarah
Brady's
> group, or are you saying that a flash surpressor and bayonet lug actually
do
> help terrorists make American's lives less safe? If "yes" to the latter,
> are you serious in proposing that terrorists are buying semi-automatic
> rifles, legally, on the USA'n market, rather than say the full-auto
versions
> they have countries full of?
>
> >> If he had a message, stuck to it, and didn't pull slicky-boy tricks
> >> like the last Democrat who was in that office, he might get more
respect.
> >> But, he's too similar, too soon after Clinton, and that taste is still
> >> in peoples' mouths.
>
> ...and finally, are you disagreeing that Kerry lies when it's convenient,
> and when caught he weasels around (oh, it's a Russian broken bolt gun,
> not a Chinese assault rifle)?
>
> Please respond with specifics to these questions rather than your usual
> personal attacks and vague language. If I just see more of the same, then
> it's pretty simple to discount anything at all you have to say as the
> ramblings of a light-weight parrot who can't discuss actual issues. Just
> like Kerry.
>

Your reasoning ability is very low, Miller. Your reading comprehensions
sucks. And you are mean-spirited.

See my responses to you below for more detail.

Oh, and don't miss the part where I bet you $10,000 that I did better in
college than you did. (I know that's going to smart, because so much of
your self-esteem is wrapped up in feeling superior to people
intellectually.)



> >> >> If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you > >>
>your
> >> >> should post own.

> >> >That probably makes sense to you, doesn't it? Moron.
> >> >
> >> >Bush's intellect is relevant to all of us. Nate's is not.
> >>
> >> Criticism of anyone's intellect is unseemly, coming from that person's
> >> inferiors....

> >Uh huh. Do you recognize, now that it's been pointed out to you, how
> >fallacious your above argument is? The notion that Nate should post his
> >scores if he's going to question Bush's.
> >
> >Are you capable of recognizing and admitting it?

> There's no fallacy there at all: if you're going to call somebody stupid,
you
> should at least be smarter than he is -- otherwise where does that leave
you?
>
> It's too bad you couldn't figure that out for yourself without my help.

In other words, you are incapable of recognizing, or at least admitting,
your fallacious reasoning.



> What were *your* SAT scores?

Not so great. As I indicated earlier, I had a pretty poor education before
college. I even quit school and joined the Army.

So? You going to argue that makes me stupid and so don't have the "right"
to question Bush's intelligence?

More of your brilliant reasoning.



> >By the way, I went to eleven public schools before I dropped out of high
> >school and joined the army. I got a GED and got into college on academic
> >probation.
>
> Isn't that interesting. I've never been called "shit-for-brains" by a high
> school dropout before. Guess there's a first time for everything.

Nice.

You're showing your character again.


>
> >My interest was learning, not grades,
>
> Uh-huh. That explains dropping out, I'm sure. Somehow.

Another mean-spirited but poorly reasoned remark.

It stems from a misperception on your part. And that misperception stems
from poor reading comprehension. LOL. You'll notice in the quote of the
full sentence below that I was referring to college, not high school. I did
not drop out of college.

"My interest was learning, not grades, yet I ended up graduating first in my
class of several thousand..had a cum. g.p.a. of 4.0.."


>
> >yet I ended up graduating
> >first in my class of several thousand..had a cum. g.p.a. of 4.0..yada
yada
> >yada. So, I'm not particularly wowed by your academic background.
>
> Uh-huh. Yeah. Right. What college? What year? What degree?

Tell you what, Miller. I'll make a public wager with you right here and
now. I will bet you $10,000, to be held by a neutral party, that I
graduated from a large well-known university with a perfect 4.0. (No doubt
higher in my class than you in yours. <chide>)

What do you say?





> >And I have some doubt about your accuracy--especially the IQ. Based on
the
> >evidence you've exhibited in this thread.
>
> In contrast to the brilliance you've exhibited? Spare me.

Uh huh. You continue to reveal yourself a faux intellectual.


> >> >I can tell from your
> >> >posts and the way you resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than argue
on
> >> >merit that you are none too bright.
> >>
> >> Oh, this is rich. You call me "moron" and "shit-for-brains", you called
> >> someone else a "fucking moron" -- and then *you* accuse *me* of ad
> >hominems.
> >
> >Yeah, I insult you. (I'm tired of taking shit politely on here.) But my
> >arguments, most of 'em anyway, stand on their own and don't rely on ad
> >hominems. Unlike yours.
> >
> >
> >> Go play somewhere else, troll.

If I were a troll, what would that make you who responds to my every post?
LOL


> >LOL. Again an example of poor reasoning. This was a political thread.
> >I've discussed/argued the subject.
>
> No, you haven't. The majority of your posts have consisted of little more
than
> abuse of those who disagree with you -- a sure sign of limited
intelligence,
> and even more limited debating ability.

Oh yes I have. But I do disagree with you--not only your political content
but your incredibly bad reasoning and your insulting treatment of people who
were polite to you. Nate for example.



So what about the wager, loser? $10,000 (or more, as you wish).

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Jeff Harper"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:UU%[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You know someone's losing it when every other word is "moron" and
> >> >"shit-for-brains". I love it when he calls someone a "moron" and then
> >> >accuses them of "ad hominem" attacks in the same post. LOL.
> >> >
> >> You're right, he's losing it, but Jeff's just a troll anyway. He's
never
> >> posted anything on-topic here. He's also been posting the same sort of
> >drivel
> >> on alt.home.repair lately, and I've never seen him post anything
on-topic
> >> there either.
> >>
> >> He'll disappear soon enough.
> >
> >Let me ask you a question. Were my posts about the subject of this
thread?
>
> No, actually, they weren't.

Well, you wasted a few minutes of my time. I went back and read my posts.
Most of my posts in this thread were about the subject. The ones that
weren't were about the content and reasoning of other posts within the
thread.


>
> First clue: read the title of the thread.

I did. See above.

> Second clue: read the contents of your posts. Almost all of them are
> insulting, abusive, or both.

Now you are just out and out lying.


> It is not relevant whether you are on-topic or
> not, when your posts consist principally of insults and abuse, you are
> behaving trollishly.

I thought you said my posts were *not* on-topic? Now you are saying that
they were but are still trollish because they were insulting. Fine, let's
consider that. For one thing, only some of my posts had insults, less than
half in this thread. Two, by your reasoning *you* are a troll--your posts
are insulting, for example you insulted Nate without provocation.


Your reasoning ability really is lower than average.

By the way, don't miss my previous post. I challenge your intellectual
superiority and wager you $10,000.

> >My insults were "in return."
>
> I hadn't insulted you, Jeff.

You had insulted Nate.

I pointed out you were the one reasoning poorly.



> Until now: you're a liar. And a fool.

Ah. This is your first insult? LOL.

I don't think I'm a fool. I know I'm not a liar.

You on the other hand are probably both.

> >
> >And, unlike yours, they were not the basis of my arguments. They were
> >supplementary.
> >
> >Shit-for-brains.
>
> That makes you *so* much more persuasive, doesn't it?

Again, a problem with your argumentation. Earlier you claimed my posts were
all off topic and relied entirely on ad hominem. Now you seem to
acknowledge that the insults were supplementary. And by the way, the
insults were semi-accurate descriptions, not purely gratuitous.


P.S. See the post where I bet you $10,000.

> >> >yet I ended up graduating first in my class of several thousand..had
> >> >yada a cum. g.p.a. of 4.0..yada yada. So, I'm
> >> >not particularly wowed by your academic background.
> >>
> >> Uh-huh. Yeah. Right. What college? What year? What degree?
> >
> >Tell you what, Miller. I'll make a public wager with you right here and
> >now. I will bet you $10,000, to be held by a neutral party, that I
> >graduated from a large well-known university with a perfect 4.0. (No
doubt
> >higher in my class than you in yours. <chide>)
> >
> >What do you say?
>
> I notice you didn't answer. What college? What year? What degree?
>
> But I won't take that bet. My undergraduate GPA was 3.02, in a difficult
> curriculum (computer science) at a demanding private school (Butler
> University). And I achieved my degree in three years. That's IMO a greater
> achievement than taking seven years to get a 4.0 in underwater
basketweaving
> from the City College of New York.
>
> OTOH, I did have a 4.0 in my master's program (computer science again,
Ball
> State Universtiy, 1991).

4.0 in your master's? Good job. But not remarkable. (You know that B's
are C's in graduate programs.)

And the 3.02 is hardly worthy of Mensa, now is it Miller? I can see why you
didn't take my bet, you faux intellectual, elitist loser.

And you put down my degree program without knowing what it was? Moron.

I'll tell you this.. that it and my two minors were a much better
"education" than a hasty computer science degree, which is essentially a
skill not an education. Your academic experience didn't exactly make you a
renaissance man. (As evidenced by your posts.)

Keep putting people down as less intelligent than you, Doug. I hope to have
further opportunity to stuff you back under your rock.

And by the way, Nate was correct. He has every right to question a
candidate's intellectual capacity, his ability to understand and manage
complicated/important responsibilities. In fact, I'd go so far as to say ev
ery citizen has not only a right but a responsibility to do so.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

P.S. Your email is amusing, too. The thought that you think you're alpha in
any setting.

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:45:20 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 4.0 in your master's? Good job. But not remarkable. (You know that B's
> are C's in graduate programs.)

Nice backpedal there, Jeff. I notice you evaded my difficult
questions entirely, by the way.

> And the 3.02 is hardly worthy of Mensa, now is it Miller? I can see why you
> didn't take my bet, you faux intellectual, elitist loser.

Mensa doesn't accept a grade point average as an acceptance criteria
for membership, although they do accept ACT scores (or did back in
the late 80's, not sure if they still do).

> And you put down my degree program without knowing what it was? Moron.

The weakness of your argument is emphasized each time you resort to
namecalling to back it up, you know that don't you?

Are you going to respond to my specific questions that I asked, or are
you going to pretend you didn't see it?

Dave Hinz

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:45:20 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > 4.0 in your master's? Good job. But not remarkable. (You know that
B's
> > are C's in graduate programs.)
>
> Nice backpedal there, Jeff. I notice you evaded my difficult
> questions entirely, by the way.

Backpedal? There are a hundred times more 4.0's in graduate programs.


> > And the 3.02 is hardly worthy of Mensa, now is it Miller? I can see why
you
> > didn't take my bet, you faux intellectual, elitist loser.
>
> Mensa doesn't accept a grade point average as an acceptance criteria
> for membership, although they do accept ACT scores (or did back in
> the late 80's, not sure if they still do).

Didn't say that it did. A 3.02 is nothing to brag about while amongst his
Mensa buddies.


> > And you put down my degree program without knowing what it was? Moron.
>
> The weakness of your argument is emphasized each time you resort to
> namecalling to back it up, you know that don't you?

Perhaps. But not so much when it descriptively emphasizes my point.

> Are you going to respond to my specific questions that I asked, or are
> you going to pretend you didn't see it?

Miller and I have been going back and forth so much I don't recollect what
questions you are referring to.

Jeff Harper
Tampa, FL

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:18:14 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:45:20 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> >
>> > 4.0 in your master's? Good job. But not remarkable. (You know that
> B's
>> > are C's in graduate programs.)
>>
>> Nice backpedal there, Jeff. I notice you evaded my difficult
>> questions entirely, by the way.
>
> Backpedal? There are a hundred times more 4.0's in graduate programs.

Yes, first you implied it was important, he posted his, and now you
say it's "not remarkable". Once your point was marginalized, you backed
off from it. That's called backpedalling.

>> > And the 3.02 is hardly worthy of Mensa, now is it Miller? I can see why
> you
>> > didn't take my bet, you faux intellectual, elitist loser.

>> Mensa doesn't accept a grade point average as an acceptance criteria
>> for membership, although they do accept ACT scores (or did back in
>> the late 80's, not sure if they still do).
>
> Didn't say that it did.

Then why did you bring it up? Again, you throw things out, people call
you on it, and you say "Well, I just brought it up, I wasn't saying it
for any reason" or someting?

> A 3.02 is nothing to brag about while amongst his Mensa buddies.

>> > And you put down my degree program without knowing what it was? Moron.
>>
>> The weakness of your argument is emphasized each time you resort to
>> namecalling to back it up, you know that don't you?
>
> Perhaps. But not so much when it descriptively emphasizes my point.

Well, at least you're not _ignorant_ that it diminishes your effectiveness.
On the off chance that someone undecided on the topic would be reading your
post, they'd see the personal abuse and decide that your point was weak.

>> Are you going to respond to my specific questions that I asked, or are
>> you going to pretend you didn't see it?
>
> Miller and I have been going back and forth so much I don't recollect what
> questions you are referring to.

Thought so. You dismissed my specific questions as "republican talking
points"; ring a bell, or do I need to google it up for you?

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:18:14 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:45:20 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 4.0 in your master's? Good job. But not remarkable. (You know that
> > B's
> >> > are C's in graduate programs.)
> >>
> >> Nice backpedal there, Jeff. I notice you evaded my difficult
> >> questions entirely, by the way.
> >
> > Backpedal? There are a hundred times more 4.0's in graduate programs.
>
> Yes, first you implied it was important, he posted his, and now you
> say it's "not remarkable". Once your point was marginalized, you backed
> off from it. That's called backpedalling.

He implied scores, etc., were all important. I called him ont it and found
out his 4 year degree g.p.a. was 3.02. Mine was 4.0. He countered that by
stating his graduate school average, which is quite different.


>
> >> > And the 3.02 is hardly worthy of Mensa, now is it Miller? I can see
why
> > you
> >> > didn't take my bet, you faux intellectual, elitist loser.
>
> >> Mensa doesn't accept a grade point average as an acceptance criteria
> >> for membership, although they do accept ACT scores (or did back in
> >> the late 80's, not sure if they still do).
> >
> > Didn't say that it did.
>
> Then why did you bring it up? Again, you throw things out, people call
> you on it, and you say "Well, I just brought it up, I wasn't saying it
> for any reason" or someting?

I explained what I meant in the text below.

>
> > A 3.02 is nothing to brag about while amongst his Mensa buddies.
>
> >> > And you put down my degree program without knowing what it was?
Moron.
> >>
> >> The weakness of your argument is emphasized each time you resort to
> >> namecalling to back it up, you know that don't you?
> >
> > Perhaps. But not so much when it descriptively emphasizes my point.
>
> Well, at least you're not _ignorant_ that it diminishes your
effectiveness.
> On the off chance that someone undecided on the topic would be reading
your
> post, they'd see the personal abuse and decide that your point was weak.

Yeah, you're probably right.


> >> Are you going to respond to my specific questions that I asked, or are
> >> you going to pretend you didn't see it?
> >
> > Miller and I have been going back and forth so much I don't recollect
what
> > questions you are referring to.
>
> Thought so. You dismissed my specific questions as "republican talking
> points"; ring a bell, or do I need to google it up for you?

Ah, now I recall. But that wasn't this subthread was it? I don't see your
post in 8 or 9 posts above this one.

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:46:53 -0400, Jeff Harper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> Thought so. You dismissed my specific questions as "republican talking
>> points"; ring a bell, or do I need to google it up for you?

> Ah, now I recall. But that wasn't this subthread was it? I don't see your
> post in 8 or 9 posts above this one.

So since I brought up your evasion in a different subthread, you're
not going to respond to it. I see.

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I would wager that even had Bush's SAT scores topped 1300, would still
> consider him a moron, as well as anyone supporting him. :)

I don't think Bush is a moron, and I certainly don't think most of his
supporters are.

I think Bush is slightly above average in intelligence, but *well below
average for a President*. I think Bush supporters are about the same
intelligence, on average, as Kerry supporters.

Also of note: I *like* Bush & Kerry supporters both. I might like you if I
knew you well.

I don't care for the arrogant Doug Miller's treatment of Nate and myself.
(You'll notice that Nate never insulted Miller but that Miller insulted him
right off the bat.)

Jeff Harper

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >
>> > I would wager that even had Bush's SAT scores topped 1300, would still
>> > consider him a moron, as well as anyone supporting him. :)
>>
>> I don't think Bush is a moron, and I certainly don't think most of his
>> supporters are.
>>
>> I think Bush is slightly above average in intelligence, but *well below
>> average for a President*.
>
> That's pure conjecture on your part. Actually, in the article that was
> talked about here that discussed Bush's intelligence, one of the
> researchers
> put his intelligence at about average for a president. So, seriously,
> just
> drop it. Isn't it enough to disagree with the guy? I'm willing to bet
> the
> Jimmy Carter was a reasonably smart guy. How did the country do under his
> leadership?
>
> I think Bush supporters are about the same
>> intelligence, on average, as Kerry supporters.
>>
>> Also of note: I *like* Bush & Kerry supporters both. I might like you if
> I
>> knew you well.
>>
>> I don't care for the arrogant Doug Miller's treatment of Nate and myself.
>> (You'll notice that Nate never insulted Miller but that Miller insulted
> him
>> right off the bat.)
>
> I went back through the archives to see who insulted whom first. Not
> surprisingly, it started in the 6th post when you called Doug Winterburn a
> "moron". As far as the Doug Miller/Nate/Jeff thing goes. The first shot
> was fired again by you in post 78 when you called Doug "shit-for-brains".
> As far as I can tell, the worst thing that Doug said to Nate was that he
> might not be as smart as Bush, which Nate never disputed.
>
> Eventually, you complained about people making ad hominem attacks. Oh,
> the
> irony.

I wish your post were ironic, so I might be slightly amused. Your
evaluation is inaccurate and addresses irrelevant points, e.g, we were
talking about Doug Miller not Doug Winterburn. But the point is not
important enough to debate further.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> > I went back through the archives to see who insulted whom first. Not
>> > surprisingly, it started in the 6th post when you called Doug
>> > Winterburn
> a
>> > "moron". As far as the Doug Miller/Nate/Jeff thing goes. The first
> shot
>> > was fired again by you in post 78 when you called Doug
> "shit-for-brains".
>> > As far as I can tell, the worst thing that Doug said to Nate was that
>> > he
>> > might not be as smart as Bush, which Nate never disputed.
>> >
>> > Eventually, you complained about people making ad hominem attacks. Oh,
>> > the
>> > irony.
>>
>> I wish your post were ironic, so I might be slightly amused. Your
>> evaluation is inaccurate and addresses irrelevant points, e.g, we were
>> talking about Doug Miller not Doug Winterburn. But the point is not
>> important enough to debate further.
>
> I accept your concession. I was just pointing out that you started
> talking
> shit first, both in the thread as a whole, and to Doug Miller
> specifically.
> I notice you don't try to dispute it. Pretty hard to do so when the proof
> is in black and white.

No, you're wrong. I first responded to Miller when I noticed him insulting
Nate's intelligence. But I don't really care one way or the other now.
It's not worth going through all those posts, especially when I know that I
can't sway your perception in the least.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>....
>> 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?

--
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.

In article <[email protected]>, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:UU%[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >You know someone's losing it when every other word is "moron" and
>> >"shit-for-brains". I love it when he calls someone a "moron" and then
>> >accuses them of "ad hominem" attacks in the same post. LOL.
>> >
>> You're right, he's losing it, but Jeff's just a troll anyway. He's never
>> posted anything on-topic here. He's also been posting the same sort of
>drivel
>> on alt.home.repair lately, and I've never seen him post anything on-topic
>> there either.
>>
>> He'll disappear soon enough.
>
>Let me ask you a question. Were my posts about the subject of this thread?

No, actually, they weren't.

First clue: read the title of the thread.

Second clue: read the contents of your posts. Almost all of them are
insulting, abusive, or both. It is not relevant whether you are on-topic or
not, when your posts consist principally of insults and abuse, you are
behaving trollishly.

Third clue: look at the name of the newsgroup.

Fourth clue: you have *never* posted anything on-topic here.

Conclusion: you're a troll.
>
>Your low-level reasoning ability is beginning to b oreme.

Does that mean you're going to go away now?

--
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.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:14:45 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:

>
>"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > > 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
-------------------------------------------------------------

"Doug Miller" wrote in message

> Go play somewhere else, troll.

Hehe ... sounds familiar. :)

I've got him killfiled now, but should've snapped to that on the very first
post.

--
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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/00/00/09/bush-sovereignty.mov
>
> At least he did not have problems with dangling chads like some Florida
> people did. Plus, he was by far the better choice.

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"
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
> >
> >"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
> >> <[email protected]> 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. -

Jeff Harper wrote:

> "WoodMangler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> (snip)
> > There are alternatives to the Dem/Gop status quo.
> >
> > www.lp.org
>
> We must choose the best candidate of the two, or the lesser of two evils if
> you prefer, because a vote for a third candidate is *almost* the same as no
> vote.

> (snip)

Actually Jeff, that's not true, not in most states in a presidential election.
You CAN vote for a third party candidate in most places and have the vote mean
something. What's more, it's about the ONLY election where you can do that.

The reason is our 'peculiar institution' of the electoral college. In effect we
elect our president by states and the vote totals matter only within the states.
While there are 'swing' states where the vote is extremely close, in most cases
one or the other candidate has a clear margin by election day.

To take my example, Bush has a lock on Arizona. If he's alive and breathing in
November, he will carry the state and even the DNC and the Kerry campaign have
recognized this.

What that means is that it doesn't matter in the presidential race how I vote.
Bush carries Arizona. So I'm free to vote my conscience by going with a third
party candidate.

Nor is this a wasted vote by any means. It strengthens whichever party I chose
to vote for. Given the way our election laws work in regard to third parties, a
vote for a third party candidate at the top of the ticket will help that party
keep a place on the ballot. Even better as third parties build 'substantial'
totals, mainstream politicians start paying more attention to them.

--RC (Who hasn't decided whether to vote Libertarian out of conviction or Peace
and Freedom out of nostalgia.)

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hmm. Guess I missed your meaning. I'm so used to morons on here.

If you find yourself running into "morons" you might take a look in the
mirror and see if you can spot what might be attracting them.

In article <[email protected]>, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> 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.

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 bullshit 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

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> 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.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
...
> 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!

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >....
> >> 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.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> 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...

Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> >> 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...
> >
> >Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
> >SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.
>
> If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you should post your
> own.

And why the devil should I have to do that? Have you decided that
qualifications are required in order to be allowed to ridicule Dumbya?
Somehow I don't think you are going to agree with me no matter what
my SAT scores were.

I don't care if you are a janitor or a solid state physicist: the
idea of Bush chimping around at a Mensa society meeting is enough to
make about half of us voters snicker.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Nate "Dumber than Bush" Perkins) wrote:
> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
> >> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> >> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> >> >> 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...
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
> >> >SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.
> >>
> >> If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you should post your
> >> own.
> >
> >And why the devil should I have to do that? Have you decided that
> >qualifications are required in order to be allowed to ridicule Dumbya?
>
> Yep. If you're gonna call somebody stupid, you oughta at least be smarter than
> he is. Think about it, Nate: if he's stupid, but he's smarter than you...
> where does that leave you? "Dumber than Bush" -- now that's something you can
> really be proud of, Nate.

Heh, I'm really not worried about being dumber than Bush. But I do
believe in a democracy where any citizen is free to say that the
president as dumb as a brick -- and not be required to present his IQ
test results in order to do so.

There were millions of people tonight that were watching the debates.
Many of them came to the conclusion that you don't have to be a genius
yourself to spot a bumbling idiot president when you see one.

> > Somehow I don't think you are going to agree with me no matter what
> >my SAT scores were.
>
> If you're smarter than the President, I'll agree that you have the right to
> call him stupid. I'll still think you're wrong about that, but that's a
> separate issue.
>
> >I don't care if you are a janitor or a solid state physicist: the
> >idea of Bush chimping around at a Mensa society meeting is enough to
> >make about half of us voters snicker.
>
> Somehow, I suspect I'm much more likely to encounter the President at a Mensa
> meeting, than I am to encounter you.

You might be right on that. I don't much get into the silly
self-appointed "genius" clubs, so I doubt I would ever go to Mensa.

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
...
> Figures you'd try to work in that you are a Mensa member. And figures you'd
> insult Nate again.
>
> I hope everyone notices that Nate did NOT insult you.
...

Hey, Jeff. It's okay. I am not insecure about how dumb or smart I
might be, and the OP likewise has no idea. He can think whatever he
wants -- no skin off my apple.

Don't drive yourself crazy with the political posts here. It is
darned hard to change anyone's mind on politics, or generally even to
have a reasonable discussion.

Don't forget to make some sawdust.

[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
> >> >SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.
> >>
> >> If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you should post
> your
> >> own.
> >
> >That probably makes sense to you, doesn't it? Moron.
> >
> >Bush's intellect is relevant to all of us. Nate's is not.
>
> Criticism of anyone's intellect is unseemly, coming from that person's
> inferiors....

This is really not true. Any of us is free to criticize the
president, even call him stupid as we see it, without having to prove
whether we are "inferior" or superior to the president. He works for
us. It's called freedom of speech.

Moreover, you don't need to be a genius to recognize when someone else
is not very bright. The average person will form an opinion (good or
bad) of the president, as they ought to.

By extension of your logic, then anyone criticizing Kerry should have
to exhibit superior characteristics to him -- whether it be in the
area of military record, diplomacy, legislative ability, etc ...

> >Do you need me to draw you pictures?
> >
> .. speaking of which....
>
> >What are *your* SAT and IQ scores, shit-for-brains?
>
> 1450 total: 660 verbal, 790 math. Last real IQ test I took, about 20 years
> ago, had me somewhere in the 150s. The online test at tickle.com showed me at
> 144 this June. No idea how accurate that one is, or whether it's been properly
> normed.
>
> For what it's worth: I was born in July 1958. I received my Bachelor of
> Science degree in May 1978 [Computer science, Butler University, Indianapolis
> IN], at age 19 years 321 days. I looked young for my age, too. It was a
> *bitch* finding a job -- some interviewers didn't believe I was really a
> college grad. :-)
(... snipped the really nasty stuff ...)

Those are some good test scores. However, these
"I'm-smarter-than-you-are" qualification tests ineffective. Where I
come from, it borders on snobbery.

There are plenty of people who are not "intellectual," but are capable
and insightful in many regards. Obviously I do not think Bush is one
of these people.

I would no more disclose my test scores and IQ than I would my annual
salary. If you think it's important to judge my personal life, then
you are welcome to see what's posted on my woodworking web page at
http://home.earthlink.net/~nateperkins1/ ... click on the link that
says "Information about me."

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
...
> As far as I can tell, the worst thing that Doug said to Nate was that he
> might not be as smart as Bush, which Nate never disputed.
...

Oh, the insult of it all! People think I am dumber than Bush! ;-P

I never disputed it because it seemed a silly point. Let me assure
you that my test scores are higher than Bush's (by a lot), if that is
an indicator of anything. Personally I don't think it is; test
scores aren't an indicator of skills, experience, or character.

I hope you guys are making some sawdust in between arguing about this
stuff.

Cheers.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > ...
> > > As far as I can tell, the worst thing that Doug said to Nate was that he
> > > might not be as smart as Bush, which Nate never disputed.
> > ...
> >
> > Oh, the insult of it all! People think I am dumber than Bush! ;-P
> >
> > I never disputed it because it seemed a silly point. Let me assure
> > you that my test scores are higher than Bush's (by a lot), if that is
> > an indicator of anything. Personally I don't think it is; test
> > scores aren't an indicator of skills, experience, or character.
>
> I think they are an indicator (not a 1:1 relationship, though) of
> intelligence, which was the topic of discussion. I think it's a fair
> statement to say that there is more to being President than strictly raw
> intelligence. Leadership, character, experience come to mind.

Agreed.

> > I hope you guys are making some sawdust in between arguing about this
> > stuff.
>
> Who has time? ;-) Actually, I just finished a small step stool for my 3
> year old. I used some mahogany my dad gave me a few months ago that had
> been lying stacked in a barn for 25 years. Hard part was working around the
> rotten areas and the large cracks. The stuff was super-wide. Some of it
> was probably 24" wide.

24"? (drool). I'm working on finishing a second doll cradle (one
goes to my daughter and one to a niece). I posted a link here in
another thread a while back. I'm also finishing up a little box of
birdseye maple with thru dovetails and miters on the edges.

> As for Jeff, I don't think he's even a woodworker. He looks to be a
> drive-by troll since he has never posted anything here ever that is
> on-topic. A cursory look through his history shows that he does the same
> thing in about a half-dozen other groups.

Yep, might be. Politics are permeating pretty much everything these
days, and woodworking's no different. I am coming to the conclusion
that nobody is really posting because they are interested in the ideas
of others. I'll be glad after Nov 2 is over.

Cheers,
Nate

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > I would wager that even had Bush's SAT scores topped 1300, would still
> > consider him a moron, as well as anyone supporting him. :)
>
> I don't think Bush is a moron, and I certainly don't think most of his
> supporters are.
>
> I think Bush is slightly above average in intelligence, but *well below
> average for a President*.

That's pure conjecture on your part. Actually, in the article that was
talked about here that discussed Bush's intelligence, one of the researchers
put his intelligence at about average for a president. So, seriously, just
drop it. Isn't it enough to disagree with the guy? I'm willing to bet the
Jimmy Carter was a reasonably smart guy. How did the country do under his
leadership?

I think Bush supporters are about the same
> intelligence, on average, as Kerry supporters.
>
> Also of note: I *like* Bush & Kerry supporters both. I might like you if
I
> knew you well.
>
> I don't care for the arrogant Doug Miller's treatment of Nate and myself.
> (You'll notice that Nate never insulted Miller but that Miller insulted
him
> right off the bat.)

I went back through the archives to see who insulted whom first. Not
surprisingly, it started in the 6th post when you called Doug Winterburn a
"moron". As far as the Doug Miller/Nate/Jeff thing goes. The first shot
was fired again by you in post 78 when you called Doug "shit-for-brains".
As far as I can tell, the worst thing that Doug said to Nate was that he
might not be as smart as Bush, which Nate never disputed.

Eventually, you complained about people making ad hominem attacks. Oh, the
irony.

> Jeff Harper

todd

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:54:21 GMT, "Dan White"
<[email protected]> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:17:10 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> 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. -

> >
>
> 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-

"Dan White" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "hex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > >
> > > 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-

"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

Swingman wrote:

> "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?
>>
>>>... and just how "intelligent" was getting your knob polished in the
>
> Oval
>
>>>Office, getting caught, then attempting to deny it?
>>
>>That was foolish, agreed. So what? We are talking about Bush's lack of
>>intelligence, not Clinton's not yours.
>
>
> Closer to what was exhibited in the "1 out of 6 billion people" statement
> above, I'd say.
>
>
>>>You're either really naive, or about the same wattage, to believe that
>>>"intelligence" is a prerequisite for the job.
>>
>>It is *your* ignorance/stupidity is shining brightly.
>
>
> Of course, I am just another one of the "morons around here", but is English
> your first language?
>
>
>>Of course we want an intelligent man in office. Only someone with
>>remarkably poor judgment would not consider intelligence important to the
>>job.
>
>
> We had one of those last time ... see above.
>
> I'll say it again ... you'd have to be a practicing Indian affairs lawyer to
> be conversant with the nuances of "tribal sovereignty". What you really
> meant to say in your original post, in place of "intelligence", was
> "ignorance" .
>
> ... and you should know better than most that ignorance should be forgiven.
> :)
>
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,
jo4hn

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > 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=20040114-074349-3947r

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

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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,

...because his political enemies are lying about his record as it is. Can
you believe what they would do if he was on record as saying he didn't know
something that had anything to do with a minority? Hell, some of them are
already comparing Bush to Hitler.

dwhite

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
>
>
> Jeff Harper wrote:
> > (snip)
>
> Actually Jeff,

DFTT

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

In article <[email protected]>, "Swingman" <[email protected]> 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.

"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

"hex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >
> >
> > 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

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
>> >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
>> > news:<[email protected]>...
>> >....
>> >> 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.

In article <[email protected]>, "Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Yeah, I'm imagining ol' George bragging about his 1200 (reweighted)
>> >SATs and hobnobbing at a Mensa club. ROFL.
>>
>> If you're going to make fun of Bush's SAT scores, then you should post
>your
>> own.
>
>That probably makes sense to you, doesn't it? Moron.
>
>Bush's intellect is relevant to all of us. Nate's is not.

Criticism of anyone's intellect is unseemly, coming from that person's
inferiors....
>
>Do you need me to draw you pictures?
>
.. speaking of which....

>What are *your* SAT and IQ scores, shit-for-brains?

1450 total: 660 verbal, 790 math. Last real IQ test I took, about 20 years
ago, had me somewhere in the 150s. The online test at tickle.com showed me at
144 this June. No idea how accurate that one is, or whether it's been properly
normed.

For what it's worth: I was born in July 1958. I received my Bachelor of
Science degree in May 1978 [Computer science, Butler University, Indianapolis
IN], at age 19 years 321 days. I looked young for my age, too. It was a
*bitch* finding a job -- some interviewers didn't believe I was really a
college grad. :-)

>I can tell from your
>posts and the way you resort to ad hominem fallacies rather than argue on
>merit that you are none too bright.

Oh, this is rich. You call me "moron" and "shit-for-brains", you called
someone else a "fucking moron" -- and then *you* accuse *me* of ad hominems.

Go play somewhere else, troll.

--
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.

"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >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

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
> > >[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message
> > > news:<[email protected]>...
> > >....
> > >> 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.