Addressing my past criticisms of President Bush...

Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)

- Intermission: Miscellaneous Chat (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=8)

- - Addressing my past criticisms of President Bush... (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=5979)

Originally Posted by Yoda

Actually, now that I look at it a bit more closely, it's supposed to be a tad farther to the left, I believe, as June takes place in the 2nd quarter.

So much for accuracy :p ;)

Originally Posted by Yoda

You're correct; which is why I included the "long-term" qualifier. People can be duped for a bit, sure, but if, say, an economy is friendly to new business, the entrepreneurs therein will inevitably perceive this, even if not right away. What I'm really getting at is that economics is not all smoke and mirrors. It's about the incentive structure, and when you step back and analyze the long-term picture, people and businesses tend to react in the ways you would expect them to to their economic situation.

Yeah, i guess the problem i sometimes have with economics, from my background of ignorance, is that there does seem to be a lot of disagreement about the complex inter-relation of policies etc i.e. what works, what doesn't, what causes what etc. (see the link posted after my traditional anti-bush-rant ;) - it's all a bit like global-warming to some extents - everyone agrees on the results/current-situation, but there's problems quantifying the process) So i guess, on that level, i still see guess-work and human-error and unquantifiable-complexity as playing a large part in what is sometimes seen as a clear-cut set of equations.

Originally Posted by Yoda

From what I understand, every single income bracket has been given a cut. I also believe the wealthy have been given a larger cut, proportionately, but given that they've been taxed disproportionately for some time, this isn't inherently unjust. I believe the wealthy still pay far, far more than their "share," so to speak.

I'm not sure. Sounds high to me, but I really couldn't say. I suppose I can try to find out, if you wish. I would be a bit curious, myself, as to what the number is.

This article argues otherwise on the tax thing - to the extent that it sees the middle-ranks as now taking up most of the slack. It's also the one with the the wealth stat [annoyingly he doesn't source it, but i checked on some of the sites he does mention, and only found one 40/1 percentage stat, but it said something that seemed different - i.e. that the top 1 percent had the same wealth as the bottom 40 or something - i'm assuming he's a better jorno than to mean that]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...077836,00.html

Originally Posted by Yoda

He's written a bit about it lately, I believe. He regards it as being the only real threat to what looks to be a period of growth capable of rivaling Reagan's boom in the 80s and Clinton's in the 90s.

Hmm, does look a bit daft doesn't it.

Originally Posted by Yoda

Depends on whatcha mean. He shot himself in the foot by introducing them in the first place, but at least he's realized his error. I never said the man was perfect; his "strategery" could use some fine-tuning. :)

Has he back tracked on it then? He hadn't by the time of his visit over here. This article claims he's damaged local industries etc, that's what i was mainly talking about - tho of course the EU has gone ballistic about it and was threatening huge trade fines last i heard.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3256197.stm

So does the president have a low IQ? I don't want to read through Yoda's post.

Originally Posted by sunfrog

So does the president have a low IQ? I don't want to read through Yoda's post.

According to the The Lovenstein Institute, he does… and the following page on their web site goes on to deal with Bush’s brain implant and how well he did through the procedure… And of course it all must be true because the IQ story appeared in Guardian Unlimited in July of 2001... :p

I did some research and The Guardian also published this later.

The Lovenstein Institute and all its works eventually were revealed, in an article published in the Wall Street Journal, to be bogus beyond belief and based solely on what had originally been a prank email. But that was not before reports of the story had appeared in Russia's Pravda, Germany's Bild and several other papers in Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States, most of which were later forced to run abject grovels

Thanks Caitlyn! :)

Well, Caitlyn, since you debunk the fictional findings of the fictional Lowenstein Institute of Scranton Pa., let me ask you this: do you really think the President has a high enough IQ for the position he holds? I.e. leader of the western world, the free world and the only superpower in the world today? Doesn't it scare you that George W. Bush holds this kind of power? Do you really think he is qualified to wield the responsibility that he does?

Anyway, to be fair, here is a news article discussing Bush's intelligence. It seems his IQ isn't as low as previously imagined (91, which is just above moronic).

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.)

Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students — hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities.

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient — an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind."

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history."

(Aubrey Immelman, St. Cloud Times)

FYI (not to boast, but to establish my own credibility), I scored 1360 in the SATs (650 Verbal, 710 Math) and I have an IQ of 130+, based on various IQ tests I have taken.

Originally Posted by sunfrog

I did some research and The Guardian also published this later.

Noooooo. Not my beloved Guardian. I'm in denial :( ;)

Originally Posted by Django

I didn't say I was obligated to reply to every question, did I?

Originally Posted by Caitlyn

I didn't say I was obligated to reply to every question, did I?

Well... no one's forcing you... but the phrase "being in denial" comes to mind...

Originally Posted by Django

Well... no one's forcing you... but the phrase "being in denial" comes to mind...

She was imitating you, bub.

Well, she used my words, but it's a totally different context.

Originally Posted by Django

Well, she used my words, but it's a totally different context.

How so? It seemed the same to me.

Well, first of all, I answered the question posed to me.
Secondly, in my case, it was about a thread on the forum that I started and that was unfairly deleted on some trumped-up grounds. In Caitlyn's case, it is a matter of her political stance in support of Bush--i.e. her extreme right-wing politics. A much more substantive issue. Considering the fact that she has repeatedly attacked me for my politics, I'd say that replying to this very civil and simple question is the least she could do. But again, the last thing on my mind is to put pressure on her--she is under no obligation to reply! I respect that!

In fact, I don't blame her! If she had anything substantive to say in support of her political stance, she would undoubtedly have said it! The fact that she chooses to remain silent when I question her politics says a whole lot to me! :D In her position, having to defend a President like George W. Bush, I would probably say nothing too! I really don't blame her! I question Bush and his policies.

See Django? This is why I question your sense of humor. You cannot laugh at anything ironic.

Originally Posted by Django

Oh please. She was making fun of you. If every post which fails to answers the questions addressed to it implies an inability to do so, it would say far, far, far more about you than it would about her.

Originally Posted by r3port3r66

See Django? This is why I question your sense of humor. You cannot laugh at anything ironic.

I'm sorry? Was that supposed to be ironic? Sorry... didn't catch on! Now that I know... :laugh: Happy now?

Originally Posted by Yoda

Well... she chose a very convenient opportunity to "make fun of me"! The way I read it, she is avoiding comment here because she has nothing substantive to say to defend her political leanings.

Originally Posted by Django

I'm sorry? Was that supposed to be ironic? Sorry... didn't catch on! Now that I know... :laugh: Happy now?

Somewhat. First, tell me what was ironic....

Originally Posted by r3port3r66

Somewhat. First, tell me what was ironic....

Frankly, I have no idea! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Django

Well... she chose a very convenient opportunity to "make fun of me"! The way I read it, she is avoiding comment here because she has nothing substantive to say to defend her political leanings.

You're completely ignoring my point: you've done the same many times over. You've "conveniently" ignored questions, made fun, and thrown insults or sarcasm at people whose questions you glossed over in favor of softball ones. Therefore, my point stands: if failing to answer pointed questions is indicative of an inability to do so, it reflects far more poorly on you than Caitlyn.