A speech without substance
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 14 Sep 2008 17:43 On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:53:33 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > On 14 Sep 2008 15:43:54 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > >>> Mensa does not accept SAT scores any more because of all the politics >>> surrounding the test. >> >>If SAT scores are meaningless, why do you want to see Obama's? > > They were still accepted by Mensa when Obama took them. And LSAT scores > are still accepted. I'd like to see both test scores. I don't see how Obama's LSAT score would apply. McCain and Palin wouldn't have written that test since they did so poorly as undergrads. What would be the point? > So far the only objective evidence I have on Obama is when he gives > speeches and he looks like a complete idiot by that standard. I understand you're a zealot, but you need to learn some self-control. Your bullshit needs to be at least somewhat plausible or people will just point at you and laugh.
From: The Professor on 14 Sep 2008 18:15 Carbon wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:53:33 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > > On 14 Sep 2008 15:43:54 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > > wrote: > > > >>> Mensa does not accept SAT scores any more because of all the politics > >>> surrounding the test. > >> > >>If SAT scores are meaningless, why do you want to see Obama's? > > > > They were still accepted by Mensa when Obama took them. And LSAT scores > > are still accepted. I'd like to see both test scores. > > I don't see how Obama's LSAT score would apply. McCain and Palin wouldn't > have written that test since they did so poorly as undergrads. What would > be the point? You are right. This whole intelligence thing is ludocrous. People who achieve at the highest level having to answer to chronic underachievers on something like that. Begs the question "what is intelligence"...but if you are going to raise the issue, and you do, then how well Obama socres, his ranked compared to others, is central. You have no point without it...not that you would let the fact you have no point here stop you...but nonetheless you still have no point without it.
From: Carbon on 14 Sep 2008 19:35 On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:21:47 -0400, BAR wrote: > Carbon wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:51:16 -0400, BAR wrote: >>> Carbon wrote: >>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:02:31 -0400, BAR wrote: >>>>> Carbon wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:54:41 -0400, BAR wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Where is his undergraduate transcript? >>>>>> >>>>>> Now you're being ridiculous. Palin took six years to finish a four >>>>>> year degree. McCain graduated 905 out of 909. I can guarantee you >>>>>> McCain's and Palin's handlers will be avoiding the subject of >>>>>> academic achievement at all costs. >>>>> >>>>> McCain was 895 out or 899. >>>> >>>> Is this supposed to be less pathetic? >>> >>> Pathetic no, fact yet. Facts are something that you cannot provide to >>> support your assertions. >> >> Bert, I'll type slow and you try to follow along. You're trying to >> smear Obama's stellar academic career with affirmative action. But this >> is Harvard Law we're talking about. It's conceivable they may have let >> in some students with 3.9 GPA's instead of the usual 4.0. However, I >> can *ASSURE* you that they wouldn't even look at anyone who graduated >> in the BOTTOM HALF PERCENT OF THEIR CLASS. Or that took six years to >> finish a BA. >> >> How can you possibly not realize that? [ Rather than correct you again, I'll just point out your mistakes and you can try again. ] > I am not saying that Obama isn't smart. But, smart doesn't equal common > sense and it doesn't meant that he always did the right thing. I've > known people who scored nearly 1600 on the SAT and wound up flunking out > for college their freshman year. And, the flushed a full ride > scholarship with it. It doesn't mean they aren't smart it just means > that they didn't apply themselves at the right time. Irrelevant anecdotal evidence. > If Obama had a stellar undergrad record at Columbia he would have posted > it on his website as another gold star and a reason to vote for him. Baseless assumption. > But, his resume is void of his undergrad studies and achievements. Baseless assumption. > Why. Grammatical error. > It can't be because of his law degree from Harvard there is something > that is being hidden. Baseless assumption. > Obama was accepted into Harvard with a wink and nod from. His undergrad > performance did not get him in. Baseless assumption.
From: Carbon on 14 Sep 2008 19:43 On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:27:28 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote: > On 14 Sep 2008 19:21:51 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> > wrote: > >>> It's close that we don't know how intelligent Obama is. >> >>Law Review at Harvard. > > Proves nothing to me. You truly are a block of wood.
From: Jack Hollis on 14 Sep 2008 19:51
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:03:08 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >> 133 is pretty high. With this information, I'd be willing to bet that >> McCain is smarter than Obama. > >Of course you are... > >...until you receive results of an IQ test that say the contrary. At >which point, IQ tests will become irrelevant to you. An IQ of 133 is pretty high Alan. This shows that McCain has "very superior" intelligence. It's only seven point from the genius range. I doubt that Obama could match it. |