|I thought that we were fighting a war to bring "Freedom" to||bboc|
Dec 22, 2003 9:09 AM
"Any demonstration against the government or coalition forces will be fired upon," Jaburi's voice said, according to an army interpreter. "This is a fair warning."
|Who told you that?||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 9:21 AM
|We are fighting a war in Iraq (and Afganistan) to bring safety to the US. Don't be confused by what you read on the internet.
Anyone without ties to insurgent groups who wants to have a peaceful pro-Saddam rally in Tikrit can apply for a permit. (yeah, right).
|Who told you that?||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 9:37 AM
|"Don't be confused by what you read on the internet."
Or what the president says.
Then again I think the president in his simple-minded way really did expect the Iraqis to love us a liberators (or at least that is what certain people who probably knew better led him to believe).
|Who told you that?||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 9:41 AM
|By percentage, how many of the Iraqis do you think welcome us a liberators? On what do you base your answer?
Since you mention simple-mindedness, how much money would you put on an IQ test competition between yourself and GWB?
|Who told you that?||bill105|
Dec 22, 2003 9:51 AM
|fwiw, gwb's gpa in college was better than gore's.|
|I think very few Iraqi's welcome us as...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 10:14 AM
|liberators, not that they weren't glad Saddam was ousted. Now they would just like us to leave.
I'd put every bit of money I have on an IQ test with GWB. I'm smart enough to know I'm not super smart or anthing (I've met some of these people and it ain't me) but I'm a little brighter than your average Joe.
BTW, at some point, when you keep hearing people say about GWB "he's not dumb, just not book smart", etc. (i.e. making excuses) you might realize that he really isn't all that sharp. But they say the same thing about Reagan and I think he will go down in history as the right man for the job of president at the time, maybe history will be as kind to GWB.
|Doesn't that mean they do welcome US Troops?||TJeanloz|
Dec 22, 2003 10:22 AM
|I would think that those who are glad Saddam was ousted DO [rather, DID] welcome US troops as liberators. It is welcoming them as occupiers that these same people have a problem with. I don't even believe that many people want US troops to leave - really, they want their country peaceful and prosperous, and the issue of having US troops stationed there is secondary to having jobs.
In terms of the GWB intelligence test, I don't think I'd take it. The smartest person I've ever known had a speach issue that prevented him from being clearly understood. But if you got to know him, it was terrifying how smart he was. I wouldn't risk that GWB is the same.
On other political topics not discussed yet:
With the Al Gore III news this weekend, can anybody not help but compare the young man to our current President?
And, what to make of Libya's move? Does this really hurt Democrats who accuse the administration of not knowing how to be diplomatic?
|Libya, rhymes with Dubaya.||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 10:32 AM
|Of course it means they welcome the US as liberators, pay no mind to the liberal double talk that has Iraqis welcoming liberation, but not welcoming the liberators.
I think the current news from Lybia is such a profound and final nail in the dems coffin for 2004, that none of the flaming liberals on this board have dared to start a thread about it!
|Yeah, I noticed that, too!||HouseMoney|
Dec 22, 2003 12:53 PM
|It's been 3 days now. The silence is deafening!|
|I guess so, but I'm sure...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 10:38 AM
|they would have liked anyone else but the US to have been the liberators.|
|I think the Israelis would have been less liked (nm)||TJeanloz|
Dec 22, 2003 10:50 AM
|And if I ever need to be rescued, I would prefer it to be by SI's Swimsuit Issue girls...|
|as far as the test, what was your SAT score?||dr hoo|
Dec 22, 2003 1:34 PM
Bush's math: 640
So, if you scored near 1200 or lower, it would be a bad bet. If you pulled a 1400, bet the farm. SAT and standard IQ tests tend to give similar distributions.
He's not stupid. He has shown himself to be willfully ignorant, which in my book is worse.
|I will modestly decline to answer...||TJeanloz|
Dec 22, 2003 1:58 PM
|But given your guidelines, I should not only be betting the farm, but also everything else I have access to...|
|I will modestly decline to answer...||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 2:13 PM
|BTW, those or "old" SAT scores, not the curremt version. Corection is about 150 points, but is impossible to peg exactly.|
|150 pts up or down?||TJeanloz|
Dec 22, 2003 2:18 PM
|My understanding was that the average score has been relatively constant over the years, but because more lower-acheiving students are taking them (b/c more people are going to college), there are more higher scores as well.
Old or new, I'm pretty sure I could make the exam look stupid.
|150 pts up or down?||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 2:28 PM
|Recent scores (post 1990-something) are typically 100 to 150 points higher for an individual of similar intelligence and preparation who took the test in the 80's.
From your post it is unclear if you have taken the exam yet. Have you? What is the basis of your confidence?
|150 pts up or down?||TJeanloz|
Dec 22, 2003 2:29 PM
|Yeah, I took it in 1996. I got between 4 and 7 questions wrong.|
Dec 22, 2003 2:42 PM
|Does the SAT penalize for an incorrect v. a blank answer? Near as I remember the LSAT does. I'm probably getting all of them mixed up now. Could be the other way around. How about the GRE?|
Dec 22, 2003 2:46 PM
|An omitted answer gives you no credit for the problem. A wrong answer subtracts 1/4th of a point from your raw score.
The GRE and GMAT are now particularly diabolical. They are run in a computer-adaptive format (taken on a computer), whereby each correct answer is followed by a more difficult question, and each incorrect answer is followed by an easier question. In this way, they build a "tree" that narrows in on your actual ability. Much more difficult, because you have very limited time, and you can't go back to questions later (because question 2 depends on your answer to question 1).
|Thanks, I'm satisfied with all my scores in the books||No_sprint|
Dec 22, 2003 2:47 PM
|doubtful I'll take any again, good thing...|
|53T, question... on SAT topic, off the rest of the thread...||No_sprint|
Dec 22, 2003 2:39 PM
|I don't remember the scale when I took the test mid-80s. 1500 was 100% I think???? I have the score, I have my official IQ test I took in 4th grade I believe too.
What was the scale in the mid-80s and what is it now?
|Scale hasn't changed||TJeanloz|
Dec 22, 2003 2:42 PM
|The scaled score has always been 400-1600 (combined math & verbal). However, a "perfect" 1600 score can be achieved by getting as many as 3 questions wrong - 1/4 of a point is deducted for each wrong answer, and fractions are rounded up when the raw score is transferred to the scaled score.|
Dec 22, 2003 2:48 PM
|they "recentered" the scores.||dr hoo|
Dec 22, 2003 2:59 PM
Shows some comparisons by year between old and new scores. Interesting, in that the "transition" from old to new took place over the span of 87-95 (I think).
"Data for 1967 to 1986 were converted to the recentered scale by using a formula applied to the original mean and standard deviation. For 1987 to 1995, individual student scores were converted to the recentered scale and recomputed. For 1996 to 1999, most students received scores on the recentered scale score. Any score on the original scale was converted to the recentered scale prior to recomputing the mean. "
|Great link, thanks. (nm)||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 5:43 PM
|Same old Bush question: Is he incompetent or a liar? (nm)||czardonic|
Dec 22, 2003 2:50 PM
|I'm in betting the farm territory (nm)||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 3:12 PM
|I think very few Iraqi's welcome us as...||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 10:26 AM
|"...they say the same thing about Reagan..."
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Libs say the same thing about all powerful conservatives.
Do you think a dummy would rise to be president of the Screen Actor's Guild? That is an organization filled with the sharpest liberal minds in the world, just ask them.
Who says GWB is not book smart? His school grades were very good. Is that what you mean by book smart? Anybody that draws a distinction between smart and book smart has a lot to learn about being smart, or maybe is just not that smart.
If you get the chance, I'll take some action on that IQ bet.
|You got me...||Dwayne Barry|
Dec 22, 2003 10:35 AM
|I'm not smart. The fact that I have a Masters degree, soon a Ph.d., and that I got through college without having to work all that hard (and being a stoner and working a job from 3 to 8 in the morning), doesn't say anything. Perhaps the phrase book smart wasn't the best choice of words, how about just not a deep thinker? For example, when asked about his conversion from pentacostal to whatever he is now, GWB couldn't even tell the person the difference between the two denominations.|
|You got me...||bill105|
Dec 22, 2003 1:46 PM
|when shown a bust of george washington, al gore thought it was thomas jefferson too.|
Dec 22, 2003 2:11 PM
|First one to trot out their CV looses this game. (I've got two Masters degrees, and avoided illegal drugs, so there)
By the way, did I say you weren't smart?
I have a hard time accepting a claim that the President is not a "deep thinker". I know I've heard it enough, but that doesn't make it true. In my conversations with the man, he has never come across as anything but an intelligent, caring individual, with a depth of understanding of many issues.
Perhaps there isn't any difference between Pentacostal and United Methodist. Perhaps he never studied the Pentacostal cannon, since he was drunk and disorderly until he was 39!
|Who told you that?||zeke|
Dec 22, 2003 11:14 AM
|your first line:
We are fighting a war in Iraq (and Afganistan) to bring safety to the US. Don't be confused by what you read on the internet.
We are fighting a war in Iraq (and Afganistan) to bring safety to the US. Don't be confused by what you read.
|Good Point (nm)||53T|
Dec 22, 2003 11:57 AM