[sdorn]

Here is an excerpt from an article about how intelligent Bush is compared to other Presidents.

In terms of brute brainpower, the smartest postwar presidents were Richard Nixon, a Duke Law School graduate with a reported IQ of 143; Jimmy Carter, who graduated in the top 10 percent of his Naval Academy class; and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School. Deeply flawed presidencies all, despite their potential.

In contrast, take high school graduate Harry Truman — railroad worker, clerk, bookkeeper, farmer, road inspector and small-town postmaster — or Ronald Reagan, sports announcer and B-list actor with mediocre college credentials.

Despite their intellectual limitations, both achieved substantial political success as president. And, to press home the point, there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a top-tier president in rankings of historical greatness, whom the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes branded "a second-rate intellect but a first-class temperament."

Huarte's notion of intelligence comprises a mix of mental acumen and emotional discernment that provides a sound foundation for modern-day presidential success.

To put it bluntly, the president need not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does need a full deck of cards. He must be comfortable in his own skin, free of emotional demons, and surround himself with competent people. With apologies to Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley, the successful president need not be a towering giant, he just needs to be good enough, smart enough — and, doggone-it, people must like him.

George W. Bush can be likable and charming. But, as the New York Times pondered in a front-page article on June 19, 2000, "is he smart enough to be president?"

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.)

Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students — hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities.

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient — an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind."

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history."

[timzerofive]

You guys are all missing the point of this article

"Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility..."

He lied, again, to cover his ass. This is not about his personal life, not about his hunting accidents, this is about the lives and livelihood of the American citizens.

Originally Posted by sdorn

Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history."

Well, for a guy with a high mental ability, he sure does a lot of retarded stuff.

And to quote the famous statement made by Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Dubya, "you are no Jack Kennedy".

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by sdorn

Here is an excerpt from an article about how intelligent Bush is compared to other Presidents.

In terms of brute brainpower, the smartest postwar presidents were Richard Nixon, a Duke Law School graduate with a reported IQ of 143; Jimmy Carter, who graduated in the top 10 percent of his Naval Academy class; and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School. Deeply flawed presidencies all, despite their potential.

In contrast, take high school graduate Harry Truman — railroad worker, clerk, bookkeeper, farmer, road inspector and small-town postmaster — or Ronald Reagan, sports announcer and B-list actor with mediocre college credentials.

Despite their intellectual limitations, both achieved substantial political success as president. And, to press home the point, there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a top-tier president in rankings of historical greatness, whom the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes branded "a second-rate intellect but a first-class temperament."

Huarte's notion of intelligence comprises a mix of mental acumen and emotional discernment that provides a sound foundation for modern-day presidential success.

To put it bluntly, the president need not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does need a full deck of cards. He must be comfortable in his own skin, free of emotional demons, and surround himself with competent people. With apologies to Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley, the successful president need not be a towering giant, he just needs to be good enough, smart enough — and, doggone-it, people must like him.

George W. Bush can be likable and charming. But, as the New York Times pondered in a front-page article on June 19, 2000, "is he smart enough to be president?"

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.)

Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students — hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities.

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient — an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind."

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history."

I rest my case!

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

And to quote the famous statement made by Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Dubya, "you are no Jack Kennedy".

Yea, he is not an adulterer. Liberals love people who cheat on their wives, lie through their teeth, and abhor any sort of religion or family values.

Liberals are full of witty quips and articulate insults. But no substance. Thats the empty life of a liberal.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

Well, for a guy with a high mental ability, he sure does a lot of retarded stuff.

I don't think that the point of the article was that he has a high mental ability, just above average. In general, politicians aren't usually all that smart anyway. Intellectuals generally don't have as well developed social skills, so they don't make good politicians.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

I don't think that the point of the article was that he has a high mental ability, just above average. In general, politicians aren't usually all that smart anyway. Intellectuals generally don't have as well developed social skills, so they don't make good politicians.

Hahah, high, above average, you'd like to argue the fine points of our description of mental IQ now? Well, remember what I said in the other thread, of what my old co-worker said about him? What you said is pretty much what HE said. Nevertheless, even that co-worker no longer supports him, and thats with him knowing bush personally, AND a loyal Republican.

The President of the United States of America, the most powerful country in the WORLD, needs to be of the highest mental ability AND highly developed social skills. Mr. Dubya are neither of those, and yet he is the president...

[shragon]

bush sucks. has lied countless times. i hope it all ends soon.

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

Hahah, high, above average, you'd like to argue the fine points of our description of mental IQ now? Well, remember what I said in the other thread, of what my old co-worker said about him? What you said is pretty much what HE said. Nevertheless, even that co-worker no longer supports him, and thats with him knowing bush personally, AND a loyal Republican.

The President of the United States of America, the most powerful country in the WORLD, needs to be of the highest mental ability AND highly developed social skills. Mr. Dubya are neither of those, and yet he is the president...

61,910,839 people can't all be wrong

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

Hahah, high, above average, you'd like to argue the fine points of our description of mental IQ now?

I wasn't trying to argue the finer points of mental IQ. There is a huge difference between high and above average. A person with a high IQ would be around 135 and up. Someone with an above average IQ would be around 110 - 120. The average IQ is 100. That is the way the test works. It is set up to be a normal distribution centered on exactly 100.

My point was that his mental ability was on par with that of most other Presidents.

[shragon]

chertoff is an ass too.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by shragon

bush sucks. has lied countless times. i hope it all ends soon.

I bet you can't find one time that Bush lied intentionally, and there is evidence to show he lied intentionally.


An example of such a lie would be when Clinton went on national television and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." See how that was proven to be a lie, and when he said those words he absolutely knew they were untrue. Now, find me one time where you can show the same thing about something Bush said.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

I bet you can't find one time that Bush lied intentionally, and there is evidence to show he lied intentionally.


An example of such a lie would be when Clinton went on national television and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." See how that was proven to be a lie, and when he said those words he absolutely knew they were untrue. Now, find me one time where you can show the same thing about something Bush said.

"Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility..."

And Clinton's lie has no direct effect on an entire American city's well-being.

[docbolo]

Originally Posted by sdorn

I bet you can't find one time that Bush lied intentionally, and there is evidence to show he lied intentionally.


An example of such a lie would be when Clinton went on national television and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." See how that was proven to be a lie, and when he said those words he absolutely knew they were untrue. Now, find me one time where you can show the same thing about something Bush said.

Brilliant! Looks like I am not alone here!

Liberals love Clinton because his lack of values. Remember its cool to get a BJ from an intern while you are married.

Wanna blame someone for 9/11? Clinton had years to do something but he was an impotent smooth talking crooked democrat. Do nothing, talk alot, kiss France's ass.

Now the sick Islamists burn American AND French flags. Great plan Bill. Hope you enjoyed that BJ.

Bottom line is Bush has more integrity in his pinkie than Clinton has in his whole lard-filled body.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

"Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility..."

And Clinton's lie has no direct effect on an entire American city's well-being.

Surely you can see the difference between a cold, calculated, planned lie in a special speech to the country just for the purpose of telling the lie in Clinton's situation and an off the cuff remark made at a press conference that was prefaced by the disclaimer "I don't think . . " in Bush's situation. They are nothing alike at all.

[shragon]

bush supporters, stop being so blind. you're just lying to yourself. how ironic.

i wasn't a fan of clinton either.

and for the record, i didn't like gore or kerry either.

mccain ftw?

[timzerofive]

[quote sdorn]In contrast, take high school graduate Harry Truman — railroad worker, clerk, bookkeeper, farmer, road inspector and small-town postmaster — or Ronald Reagan, sports announcer and B-list actor with mediocre college credentials.

Despite their intellectual limitations, both achieved substantial political success as president. And, to press home the point, there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a top-tier president in rankings of historical greatness, whom the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes branded "a second-rate intellect but a first-class temperament."

Huarte's notion of intelligence comprises a mix of mental acumen and emotional discernment that provides a sound foundation for modern-day presidential success.

To put it bluntly, the president need not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does need a full deck of cards. He must be comfortable in his own skin, free of emotional demons, and surround himself with competent people. With apologies to Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley, the successful president need not be a towering giant, he just needs to be good enough, smart enough — and, doggone-it, people must like him[/quote]

With the comment on Harriet Truman and Reagan - limited Academic success is not a direct indication on intelligence, if you want to go into IQ capacity. And no one ever said Reagan was a good president. FDR was the president in a very different time then ours. Whether he was a great intellect is debatable, and if you're trying to compare Bush to FDR then you're way too optimistic.

Bush lacks the proper "mix of mental acumen and emotional discernment". Look at his track record prior to presidency. He's definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed, and evidently a few jacks short of a full deck. He is obviously not comfortable in his own skin, and has not surround himself with sufficient competent people. Whether he has emotional demons are yet to be seen. No, a successful president need not to be a towering giant, but yet, Bush is not even smart enough, or good enough to be a competent president. And doggone-it, people hate him!

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

Surely you can see the difference between a cold, calculated, planned lie in a special speech to the country just for the purpose of telling the lie in Clinton's situation and an off the cuff remark made at a press conference that was prefaced by the disclaimer "I don't think . . " in Bush's situation. They are nothing alike at all.

Yes, they are nothing alike at all. One is concerning someone's personal life in which the country really had no business asking anyways. The other, the life & death of thousands of American citizens. You're absolutely right, they're nothing alike.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by BellasBmw

Bush can kiss my

Is that a proposal? I envy GWB, a lot

[BellasBmw]

Originally Posted by Robin Hood

Is that a proposal? I envy GWB, a lot

Ah robin hood your the best

This is an opinion thread and my opinion was that i hated bush.. No if's and's or but's.

[shragon]

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

Yes, they are nothing alike at all. One is concerning someone's personal life in which the country really had no business asking anyways. The other, the life & death of thousands of American citizens. You're absolutely right, they're nothing alike.

The original poster called Bush a liar, and I asked for a specific example. I gave Clinton's lie as an example that would be acceptable. It had nothing to do with the subject matter of the lie, but rather the intention with which the lie was told.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

. . . no one ever said Reagan was a good president.

Are you kidding? He ended the freaking cold war! He is the best President this country has had since Abraham Lincoln. Tons and tons of people say Reagan was a good president.