From: William Clark on
In article
<0913aca6-f3f7-4037-b57c-fd7f3a1fa7c7(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

Hey, that's always enough for them.
From: John B. on
On Mar 5, 9:58 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <3f6a7bc2-c958-4df8-a6b5-50683bfa60f9
> @x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Is that really the best you can do? You guys aren't doing a very good
job of hodling up your side.
From: John B. on
On Mar 5, 9:56 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> In article <0913aca6-f3f7-4037-b57c-fd7f3a1fa7c7
> @c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Whatever there is. All Jack has to offer is a 1204 SAT score, which is
average, although Jack claims it proves beyond doubt that Bush is a
genius.
I score well on IQ tests, but I did poorly on the SATs. How does that
square with his premise? Please try to suppress your urge to respond
with malice.
From: BAR on
In article <a97d9b93-89e9-4ee0-a655-95de8481de35
@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says...
>
> On Mar 5, 9:56�am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote:
> > In article <0913aca6-f3f7-4037-b57c-fd7f3a1fa7c7
> > @c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(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?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Whatever there is. All Jack has to offer is a 1204 SAT score, which is
> average, although Jack claims it proves beyond doubt that Bush is a
> genius.

You haven't provided any objective criteria. You whine about someone
using objective criteria? Good leaders are not always the smartest
people in the room. The smartest guys are usually staff guys because
they analyze things too much and are afraid to make a decision.

> I score well on IQ tests, but I did poorly on the SATs. How does that
> square with his premise? Please try to suppress your urge to respond

It could mean you are an idiot savant.
From: bknight on
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:01:47 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote:

>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.
>
Nope....Bush has that honor.

BK