health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 5 Mar 2010 09:47 On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:16:37 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >All in all, I would have preferred Cheney as president rather than >Bush, but Bush did an excellent job on the foreign policy front, but >was a huge disappointment on the domestic front. > >If Cheney would have gotten his way, the mess in Iran would not have >been left to the current administration. Unfortunately, it's pretty >clear that Obama doesn't have a clue how to deal with that situation >at all. So far, Obama looks like a complete fool with one deadline >being replaced by another deadline when the Iranians ignore it. Which was what Bush did. No change there. Obama does appear to be giving more control to the military than Bush did. Hawks have to appreciate that. But more control to fight foreign wars (without risking the people responsible for 9/11) wasn't what I would call "change". -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: bknight on 5 Mar 2010 09:49 On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:53:22 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:47:45 -0800 (PST), "John B." ><johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Mar 4, 11:29=A0am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:28 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >It's hard for me to defend the worst president since Carter....but I wil= >>l >>> >never agree with you or anybody in saying he is a dumb man. >>> >>> Only a complete ideologue could ignore the objective data that Bush >>> was a man of superior to very superior intelligence. =A0 >> >>I haven't seen that data. Can you tell me where to find it? > > >Bush's SAT score (pre 1974) was 1206. As you might expect, his 566 in >verbal was well below his 640 in math. > >In any case, this score converts to an IQ of around 127 to 132 which >is in the superior to very superior range. > >http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx > >BTW, JFK scored a 119 on the Otis IQ test when he was tested for >admission to a private high school. Did you ever compare Gore's SAT scores to Bush? They were higher. Do you think that he's of superior intelligence? Probably not, and that would be a real sign of ideology with you. We all know that IQs and SAT scores don't relate to worldly intelligence. Go to a Mensa meeting sometime and you'll see that in an instance. The bottom line is that Bush is a dolt. Incidentally, Carter's IQ was 176 and he was the second worst president in my lifetime. BK
From: BAR on 5 Mar 2010 09:56 In article <0913aca6-f3f7-4037-b57c-fd7f3a1fa7c7 @c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Mar 4, 8:53�pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:47:45 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > > > <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Mar 4, 11:29=A0am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:28 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >It's hard for me to defend the worst president since Carter....but I wil= > > >l > > >> >never agree with you or anybody in saying he is a dumb man. > > > > >> Only a complete ideologue could ignore the objective data that Bush > > >> was a man of superior to very superior intelligence. =A0 > > > > >I haven't seen that data. Can you tell me where to find it? > > > > Bush's SAT score (pre 1974) was 1206. �As you might expect, his 566 in > > verbal was well below his 640 in math. > > > > In any case, this score converts to an IQ of around 127 to 132 which > > is in the superior to very superior range. > > > > http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx > > > > BTW, JFK scored a 119 on the Otis IQ test when he was tested for > > admission to a private high school. > > That's it? That's the data? What objective criteria would you use?
From: BAR on 5 Mar 2010 09:58 In article <3f6a7bc2-c958-4df8-a6b5-50683bfa60f9 @x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > On Mar 4, 9:00�pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:53:15 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > >On Mar 4, 11:29=A0am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:28 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >It's hard for me to defend the worst president since Carter....but I wil= > > >l > > >> >never agree with you or anybody in saying he is a dumb man. > > > > >> Only a complete ideologue could ignore the objective data that Bush > > >> was a man of superior to very superior intelligence. =A0 > > > > >Rosie O'Donnell and Keith Olberwoman disagree with you! > > > > Rosie is as dumb as they come, but Keith seems to be pretty sharp. But > > the data is clear Bush is a very smart man. �And he's a man of > > conviction and principle, which, combined with his superior > > intelligence, made him a great president.. �Again, only a complete > > ideologue could ignore objective data. > > A great president? Let's look objectively at how things were at the > end of the Clinton administration and how things were at the end of > Bush. At the end of Clinton there was a budget surplus, we were at the > end of the longest persion of economic growth in US history, we were > at peace, crime had fallen nationwide, unemployment was low and the > United States was sitting on top of the world. At the end of Bush, we > were in two wars, there was a $1.7 trillion deficit, a financial > crisis and a severe recession, high unemployment, and America's > standing in the world had fallen to an all-time low. All in all, the > country was in worse shape than at anytime since WWII. But Bush was a > great president, huh? Clinton is lucky that the economy didn't start to tank prior to March of 1999.
From: BAR on 5 Mar 2010 10:01
In article <7q52p5luie8jdioporeooupuupe7e1ltq4(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:53:22 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > >On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:47:45 -0800 (PST), "John B." > ><johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>On Mar 4, 11:29=A0am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:28 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> >It's hard for me to defend the worst president since Carter....but I wil= > >>l > >>> >never agree with you or anybody in saying he is a dumb man. > >>> > >>> Only a complete ideologue could ignore the objective data that Bush > >>> was a man of superior to very superior intelligence. =A0 > >> > >>I haven't seen that data. Can you tell me where to find it? > > > > > >Bush's SAT score (pre 1974) was 1206. As you might expect, his 566 in > >verbal was well below his 640 in math. > > > >In any case, this score converts to an IQ of around 127 to 132 which > >is in the superior to very superior range. > > > >http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx > > > >BTW, JFK scored a 119 on the Otis IQ test when he was tested for > >admission to a private high school. > > > Did you ever compare Gore's SAT scores to Bush? They were higher. Do > you think that he's of superior intelligence? Probably not, and that > would be a real sign of ideology with you. > > We all know that IQs and SAT scores don't relate to worldly > intelligence. Go to a Mensa meeting sometime and you'll see that in > an instance. The bottom line is that Bush is a dolt. > > Incidentally, Carter's IQ was 176 and he was the second worst > president in my lifetime. Carter is the worst US president ever. |