Jump to content


Photo

Election 2k4


139 replies to this topic

#101 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:12 PM

Actually, we have a very conservative NIC. Everyone is like, Jesus or Hell. However, the people in this topic at NH are more liberal, and we care. We put time into supporting freedom.

(My bash of the Patriot Act is coming soon, still reading that damn fascist act)

Edited by crankymonky, 05 November 2004 - 05:12 PM.

  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#102 owentheobiwan

owentheobiwan

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts
  • Location:South Baldwin County, Alabama

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:13 PM

My IQ is 110. And though I'm not very politically informed, I believe Bush is, quote my father, "A good president and a great man."
  • 0
Jelly-bacon. The food of the gods.

"There's nothing wrong with you that I can't fix with my hands." - Batman, "The Dark Knight Returns"

#103 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:14 PM

Why is he a great man? Reasons are needed when talking to those who are politically informed.

A great man is not one whose administration defines terrorists as:


SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM
`(bb) a political, social or other similar group whose public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities,'; 

( I love the power to determine who is a terrorist)

`(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,';

(Awsome, Bush is good friends with the Bin Laden's.  He is endorsing them, he is a terrorist)

to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;


(I love how you are a terrorist if you find where the President sleaps and it is deemed for "terrorist activity")

to engage in conduct otherwise described in this clause;

(The Clause isn't there... I love this fill in the blank aspect of America)

MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(Even better, they have the power to just decide I am a possible terrorist and can detain me forever.)


The () were my comments

Thirst was making a joke about the IQ thing.

Edited by crankymonky, 05 November 2004 - 05:21 PM.

  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#104 Chessler

Chessler

    Member

  • Members
  • 337 posts
  • Location:Europe, Austria
  • Country:Austria

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:21 PM

My IQ is 110. And though I'm not very politically informed, I believe Bush is, quote my father, "A good president and a great man."

Great. *Clap Clap*

As Cx already said, stop the discussion which prez is better. The election is over.
If your IQ is high enough, you will realize you ain't going anywhere with it.
  • 0

#105 texmustache

texmustache

    Member

  • Members
  • 198 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:23 PM

How come it seems like everyone on this topic is against Bush? WHY!?!?

The reason i personally don't like Bush is he tells a lot of lies and dodges a lot of questions about what he does. He's fooled people (generally the ones that only watch the news for political views) into thinking that hes a good,wholesome, multi-grain,christian hero...and truth is he isn't. Plus, his cabinet is full of crooks and his homeland security is just an excuse to spy on us...with lasers from space! (Seriously, i dislike the patriot act)

http://www.piratesandemperors.com/

Edited by texmustache, 05 November 2004 - 05:24 PM.

  • 0

#106 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:27 PM

Most people of conscience have serious problems with Bush. Unfortunately, 52% of Americans found him more palatable than Kerry. I think that speaks more to Kerry's inability to inspire the nation than it speaks to Bush's greatness.

Social conservatives think Bush is a good man as far as values go, social liberals think he's closed-minded and bigoted. Fiscal conservatives and liberals are perplexed by his ruinous economic policies. Overall, I think he's the worst president we've had in my lifetime and I have an excellent memory of Reagan who was quite lacking himself.

He may be a good man, depending on your value system, but he's not a very good leader of the free world.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#107 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:32 PM

Okay, here is my more detailed reasoning for Why Bush is a terrorists. It is based on the Patriot Act, and all references are from it, under secitons 411 and the beginning of 412. I just realized this tonight. Copy and Pasted from an AIM conversation. the name HIDDEN is my friends that he doesn't want shown. At the beginning I am quoting Sec 411-defining terrorist related terms.

crankymonky0: I jsut proved that Bush is a terrorist
crankymonky0: well, I found it
crankymonky0: it says so in the Patriot act
HIDDEN: lol
crankymonky0: it does is the irony
crankymonky0: ok
crankymonky0: here it comes
crankymonky0: `(VII) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this section, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,';
crankymonky0: Therefore, Bin Ladens wife and kids are terrorists
HIDDEN: heh
crankymonky0: `(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--
crankymonky0: Bush(s) have given hefty benefits to the Saudis
crankymonky0: and the Bin Ladens
crankymonky0: which includes Osama's wife and kids
HIDDEN: you have a lot of time on your hands dont you?
crankymonky0: therefore, Bush has ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED
crankymonky0: also
crankymonky0: ASSOCIATION WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
crankymonky0: he has associated with them
crankymonky0: determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.'.

crankymonky0: and that may have caused harm to America
crankymonky0: therefore, there is a MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.
crankymonky0: and, Bush MUST be put behind bars
crankymonky0: wow, that was pretty simple
HIDDEN: i guess so
crankymonky0: also meaning, Jeb Bush and all relatives that are in dubbya's generation or younger
crankymonky0: are terrorists
crankymonky0: for the next 2 years
crankymonky0: or until Osama Bin Laden (or relatives) make another attack
crankymonky0: then, the 5 year counter resets
crankymonky0: (or until the patriot act is repealed)

Edited by crankymonky, 05 November 2004 - 05:33 PM.

  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#108 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:44 PM

The patriot act is yet another reason why I don't FULLY support Bush. I think it's taking away from the essence of America.

Cranky, he failed to meet any positive expectation?
What about dissolving the Taliban? What about the removal of a twisted dictator who killed his OWN people? What about the democratization of Iraq?

Yes I will admit there are MANY things that Bush didn't do, or made worse (such as the economy?), depending on your POV, but there were obviously some things that he did well.

In my personal opinion, Kerry made a lot of empty promises. Yes, bush did to in 2000, but he also did some reasonable things (such as upping education as a solution instead of making quick fixes. Yes...all those jobs in China and such, but when our generation becomes the adults of America, that education will kick in big time.)

I hope you were joking about your cheating in Florida comment.

Don't rip on my siggy, it has humorous qualities to it.

Oh, and for all you people who can think of nothing but to rip on Bush, see if you can come up with ONE good thing that Kerry has done, that can't be easily countered. And don't tell me this crap: Every bad thing about Bush equals one good thing about Kerry.

I'm not gonna post in this thread anymore unless someone makes an INTELLIGENT argument (ok..cranky's had a few).
  • 0
Indiana '11

#109 Chessler

Chessler

    Member

  • Members
  • 337 posts
  • Location:Europe, Austria
  • Country:Austria

Posted 05 November 2004 - 05:44 PM

Seems to me like he didn't even read one word, right?
  • 0

#110 texmustache

texmustache

    Member

  • Members
  • 198 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 06:01 PM

What about...a twisted dictator who killed his OWN people?

Same thing could be said about Bush actually. (Our troops, which say what you like didn't really volunteer for this (aside from the whole signing up for military service)...[especially the ones who did it for college money])

On a whole, you can't find many good arguments for Kerry, MAINLY because he hasn't had a chance. If someone had asked you the same thing about about Bush 4 years ago, what would you have said? What i mean is, i think Kerry deserved a chance.

Edited by texmustache, 05 November 2004 - 06:02 PM.

  • 0

#111 AirApache

AirApache

    Member

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 05 November 2004 - 06:12 PM

Ah, good point. Well, ok, the subject goes to the histories.

Bush: Completed high school with straight A's, went into law at Harvard, and got straight A's there as well. Served in the National guard. Had a drinking problem.

Kerry: Dropped out of college, served in Vietnam. Got three purple hearts: each were from a self-inflicted wound, whether by accident or not. All of them could be tended to with a pair of tweezers and a band-aid. Earned a silver star, by shooting a half wounded man who was running away.

I don't know...if they were running for first term, who seems more qualified?
  • 0
Indiana '11

#112 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 05 November 2004 - 06:28 PM

Cheney.

Or Kerry.

Or Edwards.

Not Bush.

I'm not going to type up a biography of each candidate (like I did for my government report)

Bush's experience falls short as governor for 6 years compared to everyone else.

Straight A's in Texas Public School? Damn, they really do have an excellent education program.

Both Candidates went to Yale. Bush "served" in the National Gaurd. And by serve, I mean skip the draft and get out of all work...And a Cocaine Problem.
http://www.salon.com.../10/18/cocaine/
Can I see Bush's transcript, or is this information not backed up?
And, sources for Kerry's information... I would like to see the Purple Heart Injury report, not your take on his duty.

Cranky, he failed to meet any positive expectation?
What about dissolving the Taliban? What about the removal of a twisted dictator who killed his OWN people? What about the democratization of Iraq?


Dissolving the Taliban, what about releasing Osama right when he had the chance to capture him?
Removing a twisted dictator that did nothing recently. In America, we have no permission for Ex-Poste Facto laws. Now, we can't punish the man for something he did in the past. He went in for oil, also, the Deulfer Report proved Saddam had no WMD. I love how the reason we went into Iraq changes every few months.

Kerry made no empty promises, he wasn't elected, so no promises are valid. Bush failed to do nearly everything he said he would in 2000.

I hope you were joking about your cheating in Florida comment.

No. Bush cheated in 2000. I am not sure about 2004, I still am reading voting problems and machines that were 5% pre-loaded for Bush. (Information on 5% pre-laod from
Webster Bosley
Campaign Manager and Treasurer
Kenneth T. Bosley
Democratic Nominee
6th Congressional District of Maryland
United States House of Representatives)

Here are a few sources, something you prefer not to list.

http://www.michaelmo...room/f911notes/

FAHRENHEIT 9/11:  “Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin’ woman and that her state has hired a company that’s gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren’t likely to vote for you.  You can usually tell them by the color of their skin.” 

“The vote total was certified by Florida's secretary of state, Katherine Harris, head of the Bush campaign in Florida, on behalf of Gov. Jeb Bush, the candidate's brother.” Mark Zoller Seitz, “Bush Team Conveyed an Air of Legitimacy,” San Diego Union-Tribune, December 16, 2000.
The Florida Department of State awarded a $4 million contract to the Boca Raton-based Database Technologies Inc. (subsidiary of ChoicePoint).  They were tasked with finding improperly registered voters in the state’s database, but mistakes were rampant. “At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors.” St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003.
Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, “was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida’s voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election.  Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lost in Florida. Oliver Burkeman, Jo Tuckman, “Firm in Florida Election Fiasco Earns Millions from Files on Foreigners,” The Guardian, May 5, 2003 http://www.guardian....,949709,00.html.  See also, Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.
In 1997, Rick Rozar, the late head of the company bought by ChoicePoint, donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. Melanie Eversley, “Atlanta-Based Company Says Errors in Felon Purge Not Its Fault,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.  Frank Borman of Database Technologies Inc. has donated extensively to New Mexico Republicans, as well as to the Presidential campaign of George W. Bush. Opensecrets.org, “Frank Borman.”
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Gore got the most votes in 2000.

[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.  Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.
“The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.”  Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001.
See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount.  The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. http://www.aei.org/d...eatingPaper.pdf
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Congressional Black Caucus members tried to object to the election outcome on the floor of the House; no Senator would sign the objections.

“While Vice President Al Gore appeared to have accepted his fate contained in two wooden ballot boxes, Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus tried repeatedly to challenge the assignment of Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush…. More than a dozen Democrats followed suit, seeking to force a debate on the validity of Florida's vote on the grounds that all votes may not have been counted and that some voters were wrongly denied the right to vote.”  Susan Milligan, “It’s Really Over: Gore Bows Out Gracefully,” Boston Globe, January 7, 2001.
The Congressional Black Caucus effort failed for “lack of the necessary signature by any senator.” Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) had previously advised Democratic senators not to cooperate. ‘They did not.’” Robert Novak, “Sweeney Link Won't Help Chao,” Chicago Sun-Times, January 14, 2001. 



Don't rip on my siggy, it has humorous qualities to it.

Don't rip on Bush's war, it has humurous qualities to it...Is this what you are defending?

Edited by crankymonky, 05 November 2004 - 06:34 PM.

  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#113 texmustache

texmustache

    Member

  • Members
  • 198 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 06:51 PM

Ah, good point. Well, ok, the subject goes to the histories.

Bush: Completed high school with straight A's, went into law at Harvard, and got straight A's there as well. Served in the National guard. Had a drinking problem.

They're still not sure about Kerry's wounds or Bush's "service". And Bush...well, i have no clue how he got into harvard *coughdadsmoney*. If you ever seen some of the things he said...he's definately not the brightest tool in the picnic drawer. Oh, and not Cheney. He's a crook. Oh, and i guess the reason that we got electronic voting this year was so there was no paper trail. Conspiracy or not, i don't think bush wanted a repeat of 2000 (where he almost lost)

Edited by texmustache, 05 November 2004 - 06:53 PM.

  • 0

#114 Nello

Nello

    Member

  • Members
  • 106 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 06:58 PM

Bush: Completed high school with straight A's, went into law at Harvard, and got straight A's there as well. Served in the National guard. Had a drinking problem.

Kerry: Dropped out of college, served in Vietnam. Got three purple hearts: each were from a self-inflicted wound, whether by accident or not. All of them could be tended to with a pair of tweezers and a band-aid. Earned a silver star, by shooting a half wounded man who was running away.
I don't know...if they were running for first term, who seems more qualified?


The world has decided to unite and two men are running for leader of the world.

Candidate A cheated on his wife, drank alcohol almost every night, had a less than perfect military record, and was quoted as saying, "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes to spread a lively terror".

Candidate B on the other hand is well educated, has dutifully served in his country's military, has led a very disciplined life, has never cheated on his wife, and rarely drinks alchohol. In fact when he does drink, he never has more than one beer.

Who seems more qualified?







Candidate A: Winston Churchill
Candidate B: Adolf Hitler

The person who seems more qualified is not always the best choice. Have a nice day.
  • 0
"The older you get the more and more like yourself you become." D. Krell

#115 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 05 November 2004 - 07:07 PM

Candidate B also said some awful things
(translated-I believe)
"A Country must stop at nothing to cleanse itself of evil"
I can't find my list of his quotes from My struggle-Mein Kampf, but he said far worse things. You also contradicted what I said about Kerry, because he his better qualified than Bush.

Edited by crankymonky, 05 November 2004 - 07:07 PM.

  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#116 Fuse

Fuse

    Member

  • Members
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 05 November 2004 - 07:18 PM

Kerry: Dropped out of college, served in Vietnam. Got three purple hearts: each were from a self-inflicted wound, whether by accident or not. All of them could be tended to with a pair of tweezers and a band-aid. Earned a silver star, by shooting a half wounded man who was running away.

I cant believe anyone is still trying to call out Kerry for his awards in the Vietnam War. The data is VERY contradictory, and there is no way you can factually support your claims. There is evidence to both sides of that story, but the evidence against Kerry is mostly word-of-mouth from the Swift Boat Vets who got so much funding from republicans.

The Silver Star:

The official citations show Kerry was not awarded the Silver Star "for simply pursuing and dispatching" the Viet Cong. In fact, the killing is not even mentioned in two of the three versions of the official citation (see "supporting documents" at right.) The citations - based on what Elliott wrote up at the time - dwell mostly on Kerry's decision to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.

The longest of the citations, signed by Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, describes Kerry as killing a fleeing Viet Cong with a loaded rocket launcher. It says that as Kerry beached his boat to attack his second set of ambushers, "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hooch, and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

Two other citations omit any mention of the killing. One was signed by Admiral John J. Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, and the other was signed by the Secretary of the Navy. Both those citations  say Kerry attacked his first set of ambushers and that "this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers." Later, 800 yards away, Kerry's boat encountered a second ambush and a B-40 rocket exploded  "close aboard" Kerry's boat. "With utter disregard for his own safety, and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet away from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy." In these citations  there is no mention of enemy casualties at all. Kerry was cited for "extraordinary daring and personal courage . . . in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

(From FactCheck.org)

The Purple Hearts are also easy to counter. For example: That rice/grenade incident DOES qualify for a Purple Heart, even if it was Kerry's own grenade. Friendly fire does qualify as long as it was directed at enemy forces or equipment.

Or how about Letson, the doctor who claims to have treated Kerry for a wound that supposedly was self-inflicted when kerry fired a grenade at rocks. How about him not being on the record as the doctor treating Kerry that day, and Kerry's comrades who were with him denying ever having spoken to Letson.

Kerry's war record was attacked in a childing smear attempt that was since disproven. It does not constitue a good argument against his campaign for president (which is now over, so I dont know why it even matters). There is little point in you bashing Kerry now, because as you have said, the election is over. I wont say I "bash" Bush, but providing facts about the man's policies DOES still serve a purpose as keeping informed on the leader of your country. If someone says something about Bush, insulting Kerry is not a good retort at this point. You keep saying the election is over, yet it seems to be you who I see mentioning Kerry's name the most.
  • 0
Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.

#117 Viper

Viper

    Member

  • Members
  • 611 posts
  • Location:michigan

Posted 05 November 2004 - 07:44 PM

I went to the NYLC in DC and as a little fact George W. Bush's cumulative gpa at yale was a 2.3. Just as a little sidenote I would also like to mention that just about any IQ test is based on old science and is essentially worthless. It was based off an old theory that we had some absolute intelligence that would cover all areas of our lives. The truth is, that our brain is sufficiently complex and only specific areas control specfied aspects of our lives. For instance, an average classical composer has a portion of their brain that is known to be about 300% larger than the average. Athletes have larger areas controling simple, speedy processes and motor skills. Between 90-110 is the standard deviation for an average IQ score. I scored a 154 last time I took one, which means I can recognize patterns put in that form by very primitive people that made them in order to discriminate against minorities. Every decade our IQ tests gain 5 points, and it has been proven that people who take IQ tests more often can increase their scores as much as 20 points, so sorry folks, even if you have a 170 IQ you're really not very special, it just means you do well, like I did, on a test formed by yet again, the same ignorant protestants that helped elect Bush. Now I'm gonna go conduct a "crusade."

Edited by Viper, 05 November 2004 - 07:47 PM.

  • 0

#118 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 05 November 2004 - 07:51 PM

NYLC? That stands for?
DC, dude, come nerf with us some time.

Between 90-110 is the standard deviation for an average IQ score.


Just wondering, your not basing that off statistics? If that were the standard deviation, 65% of people would score 90-110 above of below the mean score. I think you mean that 90-110 is the mean score.

Viper, I love you. And, I'm reporting for duty to the Liberal Crusade.

Where do you live? DCNO3 is tomorow.
  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#119 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 08:13 PM

Between 90-110 is the standard deviation for an average IQ score.


Just wondering, your not basing that off statistics? If that were the standard deviation, 65% of people would score 90-110 above of below the mean score. I think you mean that 90-110 is the mean score.

I think he was saying that 90-110 is within the first standard deviation.

It actually varies, depending on the IQ test in question. Typically, IQ tests aim for a 100 mean and a 15 standard deviation. So it follows that, on an 'average' IQ test:

68% of people score between 85 and 115
95% of people score between 70 and 130

...and only 14 people in ten thousand (.14%) score above 145.


Of course most IQ tests that people take are free web-based tests or tests administered in 30 minutes during class that bear no resemblance whatsoever to an actual clinical test which is longer, generally harder, and timed.

It's also true, as noted, that IQ tests are only a measure of a specific kind of talent and it doesn't apply as a general indication of success.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#120 Nello

Nello

    Member

  • Members
  • 106 posts

Posted 05 November 2004 - 08:57 PM

Candidate B also said some awful things
(translated-I believe)
"A Country must stop at nothing to cleanse itself of evil"
I can't find my list of his quotes from My struggle-Mein Kampf, but he said far worse things.  You also contradicted what I said about Kerry, because he his better qualified than Bush.

Yes, Hitler was a despicable man. I did not state otherwise. What I posted was merely an exercise in thought. The way in which facts are presented can greatly sway an uneducated individual's opinion. You must admit that if you did that exercise properly, choosing a candidate before scrolling down, you would have chosen Candidate B. One's past does not always project the kind of leader they will be.
I am rather confused as to how I contradicted you. My exercise in thought did not say which presidential candidate appeared more qualified.

Edited by Nello, 05 November 2004 - 08:58 PM.

  • 0
"The older you get the more and more like yourself you become." D. Krell

#121 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 05 November 2004 - 09:02 PM

My exercise in thought did not say which presidential candidate appeared more qualified.


OK, then it didn't contradict me:)
I thought you were supporting Kerry, which you weren't.

I actually did that once in a class, a very interesting exercize.

You can't say that one's past has no bearing on how they will lead. If somone kills their brain using Cocaine, they would probably suffer in terms of leadership...
  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#122 Lemmypoo

Lemmypoo

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 06 November 2004 - 01:08 AM

Between 90-110 is the standard deviation for an average IQ score.


Just wondering, your not basing that off statistics? If that were the standard deviation, 65% of people would score 90-110 above of below the mean score. I think you mean that 90-110 is the mean score.

I think he was saying that 90-110 is within the first standard deviation.

It actually varies, depending on the IQ test in question. Typically, IQ tests aim for a 100 mean and a 15 standard deviation. So it follows that, on an 'average' IQ test:

68% of people score between 85 and 115
95% of people score between 70 and 130

...and only 14 people in ten thousand (.14%) score above 145.


Of course most IQ tests that people take are free web-based tests or tests administered in 30 minutes during class that bear no resemblance whatsoever to an actual clinical test which is longer, generally harder, and timed.

It's also true, as noted, that IQ tests are only a measure of a specific kind of talent and it doesn't apply as a general indication of success.

Well I probably at one point had a high IQ, but due to alcoholism and eating glue, my IQ is probably substantially lower than before.

Many bad things have come from this election, INCLUDING the fact that I now CANNOT wipe my ass anymore. The most bitchin' toilet paper company in the world, Shit-Be-Gone, just put an embargo on all red states, including my own.

http://www.shitbegone.com/

Not going to use Charmin, gonna buy a fuckin bidet. Fuck off Mr. Whipple.

Now you wanna know what the definition of Evil is? Yes, a shitty bum is very evil, but this is much more evil. Back in 2000, Republican Senator John McCain planned to run for the nomination as president! Yes he's republican, but I'd vote for him regardless. Well, that is he planned to run, he couldn't snag the nomination because of a mudslinging campaign by a group called "Republicans for Clean Air". Hrm, wonder why they protested against a strong Republican leader... oh that's right! They were funded by two oil rich tycoon brothers that just happened to be friends with the little nobody Governer of Texas George... George... I forget his name! Sounds like "Mush" or something. But that guy must be a fucking bastard-o for shooting down McCain.

While I would agree with the consensus of "when life gives you lemons, make lemonade," I put my own twist on it, and I plan on a t-shirt deal! "When life gives you lemons, chuck them as hard as you fucking can at the Whitehouse!"
  • 0
Conner MacManus: Jesus! He brought a six-shooter!

Murphy MacManus: There were nine of them, you retard! What were you going to do with the last three, laugh them to death? Funny man?

-brothers Macmanus, Boondock Saints

#123 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 06 November 2004 - 01:36 AM

Many bad things have come from this election, INCLUDING the fact that I now CANNOT wipe my ass anymore.  The most bitchin' toilet paper company in the world, Shit-Be-Gone, just put an embargo on all red states, including my own.

http://www.shitbegone.com/

You rock Lemmy. I'm gonna use my blue-state discount to stock up.

It's funny that you link to this though as Julie and I had decided to print up "Boycott Red Counties!" bumper stickers. We live right on the line between Los Angeles and Orange Counties in SoCal and, well, 'The OC' is pretty red. We're not going to be spending money there in the future.

I'll buy one of your shirts, provided you get them printed in a blue state or county.


Boycott RED Counties!

Posted Image
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#124 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 06 November 2004 - 01:45 AM

My state turned up blue, and I know of a pretty good t-shirt printer shop in my town. Maybe I can help put in the order. Also Lemmy, if you need some kickass TP, ask any of us living in the blue states. I am sure we would be happy to help so that wiping your ass can be more enjoyable.

Edit: Goddamn it, I just remembered that my county turned up red. Goddamn hicks and old people. At least my state actually turned up blue.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 06 November 2004 - 01:46 AM.

  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#125 Viper

Viper

    Member

  • Members
  • 611 posts
  • Location:michigan

Posted 06 November 2004 - 02:04 AM

Thanks crankymonkey, but I live in Michigan and I was invited to the National Young Leaders Conference in DC and while in DC that's part of what I learned.

I was unclear on the standard deviation, thanks for clearing it up cxwq.

Edited by Viper, 06 November 2004 - 02:05 AM.

  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users