I disagree... if I ignored questions posed to me, I did so because I believed they were either irrelevant or petty or pointless--I did so mainly to avoid getting mired in an unending, pointless argument. Caitlyn is ignoring a very crucial, sensitive issue that, essentially, confronts her politics. And she is conveniently ignoring this question.

Well done Django. I take it this is all a clever ploy to show how someone with high SAT scores can still be a complete pillock. Well done.

Incidently, by posting that article are you arguing that Kennedy also wasn't fit to be president then? (christ, look what you've driven me too :rolleyes: )

Well, like I said, I was trying to be fair.

Of course, apart from the (apparent) IQ, the Kennedy and Bush are diametric opposites.

Anyway, I completely oppose Bush on his policies, on his belligerence, on his prejudice, on his corruption, etc. Kennedy doesn't share any of these traits.

FYI, the article also cites Kennedy as being "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind"--hardly a statement that can be made of Bush, who is singularly lacking in wit and who can hardly be said to be a quick study.

Also, there are diverse accounts of Kennedy's IQ. Some sources place him at near genius level. I know of first-hand sources that describe Kennedy as having incredibly fast reading comprehension.

I think the consensus regarding Bush is that doesn't remotely approach that level. The question about Bush is: is he a complete moron, or is he somewhat intelligent. I'd say, he's somewhat intelligent, even though there is considerable evidence to suggest he is an outright moron.

Concerning my own scholastic aptitude, incidentally--I am basically a technical guy by profession. I don't claim to have expert knowledge in everything.

Your qualifier doesn't change my point; you yourself have without a doubt ignored questions on "crucial, sensitive issues." And there's no doubt whatsoever that you've "conveniently ignored" questions which "confront your politics."

Methinks it's not the question, but the person asking it, who she thinks is either "irrelevant or petty or pointless." Every time she bothers to sit down and respond to your questions, she shows herself to be well-informed and reasonable. I'm quite sure that this is no exception.

Interesting you should say that, Yoda. I would say that much the same principle applies to why I avoid some of your and Caitlyn's questions... to quote you... "it's not [so much] the question, but the person asking it"...

Like I said, my main motivation is to avoid getting into pointless, never-ending arguments with people whom I personally deem to be lacking in objectivity (just my opinion, for what it's worth).

Deja vu?
 

Can't you guys just write "ditto" or something?

:laugh:

Ditto!

Now continue like that. It'll save time. And, erm, light-projection-capacity possibly. Hey, it just occured to me. It must cost the screen very little energy to display "black" right? Next to none even? So hell, actually, go ahead. Have this conversation again til y'all grey and wizened (or extra green or whatever). IT'll save my screen from wear-n-tear ;)

Alright, to practice what i preach...

Django, some questions for you....

Do you ever consider that you're not going to convince any bush-likers of his failings through name-calling alone (fun as it is ;)), and that providing unsubstantiated or contradictory material to justify your claims only makes things worse?

Do you ever consider your own actions childish?

Have you had a nice day?

Who's name-calling? Is my material unsubstantiated or contradictory? How so? Seems pretty coherent to me. Vis-a-vis the Bush IQ deal, I posted a pretty fair, relevant news article... actually a right wing, pro-Bush news article... but the only one I could find offhand concerning Bush's IQ.

Sometimes, yes... but on the whole, I consider myself pretty mature.

So far, so good...

You did? What happened to it then? Or is it done in invisible print so only you can see it?

You really have a problem with admitting you made a mistake don’t you? Oh… and your thread was not deleted… it was locked… there is a difference… anyone who wants to check it out can still see it…

In the first place, you have no idea what my political stance is… but have continually jumped to conclusions just because I don’t buy into some of the crap you keep spouting off…

In the second place, what I have attacked, as you put it, are some of the accusations you have made and asked for legitimate sources which you have never supplied… and after your first asinine post in this thread regarding Bush’s IQ, I have to assume that you can not distinguish the difference between a legitimate source and scribbling on a bathroom wall….

In the third place, there was nothing simple or civil about your question… it was very evident the only reason you asked it in the first place was because you were ticked off your little IQ game was exposed for just what it was… pure bull.

In conclusion I find your choice of words rather ironic… why on earth do you think I would feel the need to defend my political leanings… especially to you? Also considering the fact, that I see a much broader picture then I personally feel you can comprehend… why would I bother? Your lack of objectivity is well documented in this forum…

Right on Pidzilla!!

Hehehe. Yeah, spot on Caity.

But what's up Yods? Afraid you're getting out-numbered? ;)

Nope. Just making reference to a bit of MoFo lore. ;)

Whether it was real or not the president is still a moron.
http://www.alipirouz.com/photos/bush.jpg
Must be nightvision. Dumb too Gol

Moronic actions - i'd agree. Dumb - i really doubt it. But at least it'd be nice to have a coherent argument against - rather than a bull headbutting the (wrong) fence.

(and stop making me think of making love in cranberry sauce)

EDIT: oh, well now you've changed the picture...i take it you've heard the turkey in the recent surprise-visit was an inedible mock-up. Wish we could pin it on the spin doctors, tho it seems it was happenstance - but still, a nice analogy for his incumbency - he's a full on fake (and man does he stick in my craw. Show him the door. Stuff him, he's Bin Laden kin)

You're becoming horribly predictable. Show up, make outrageous claims, get called on them, spit out rhetoric, rinse and repeat. For both your sake and ours, lay off posting until you have something of substance to say.

Or he could've been handed binoculars with the cap on, and, like any person, put them to his eyes for a moment before realizing the cap was on. Attached is the next photo in that series, a moment later.

I'm shocked at quickly you've fallen back on chain-letter-esque barbs. I thought you had a larger stockpile of made-up facts than that.

You're insane. I can't talk to you. You're like one of those brainwashed people in a cult. Every word you say about politics is an arguement against homeschool. You need to stop defending the president. He sucks, get over it. No amount of squabling is going to change that.

And anyway I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Cait who seemed to be defending the president's IQ. My picture is to remind everyone that the president IS stupid. That email was believed by so many people because it IS believable.

:rolleyes: No, they're not. They are visible for you or anyone else to see. You may not be satisfied with my replies, but they are out there.

:rolleyes: No, I don't have a problem admitting my mistakes... but I do have a problem "confessing" to crimes that I haven't committed or grovelling to your imaginary accusations. Sorry, but I don't do that, Ms. Police woman. Take your S&M act elsewhere--I'm not interested, thanks. Deleted... locked... same difference! :rolleyes:

Your political stance is pretty obvious--you are a hardcore right-wing extremist, bordering on neo-Nazi fanacticism. At least, that's how you come across to me! :rolleyes:

Well, my point about Bush's IQ was taken from a credible source. Keep in mind that the Guardian, Pravda and Bild all published this story as truth. They were mistaken, and I wasn't aware of their retractions. As such, I admit to having been mistaken in that matter, and I cited another article concerning the President's intellectual level to be fair, taken from a right wing source, to please the right-wingers, like you. In any case, come what may, the President's intelligence is far from impressive and far from adequate to the position he holds. Still less adequate is his character and moral fiber, which I have repeatedly demonstrated to be seriously flawed and lacking. Bush may not literally be a moron, but he remains a grave threat to the stability of the nation and the world--at least in my opinion.

No, I wasn't ticked off. And I wasn't playing games either. I was simply stating evidence to support my claims. I was mistaken with this one piece of evidence, I admit it. I.e. the President's IQ is not 91 (which is almost retarded), rather, it is the somewhat more respectable level of 115-119. Still far from genius level. Moderately intelligent at best.

So... you cry wolf when I don't feel compelled to defend my politics to you, and then you do exactly what you accuse me of doing? Why would you bother... good question. I might pose the same question to you... why should I bother paying any attention to your meaningless allegations against me? And, for the record, I guarantee you that I have far greater objectivity than either you or Yoda, whom I perceive to be deeply biased.

Django, one of the most ironic things about this thread is that you haven't addressed your past criticisms of Bush, or your present ones. I'd agree that Yoda seems too attached to Bush, but you seem too attached to your perspective (which i'm embarrased to be in line with...because at least Yoda presents consistant arguments where you just insist on your rightness). The point is there are lots of valid criticisms of Bush. Can't you manage to scrabble at least one together?

The article you've posted does nothing but undermine the nature of your argument - so to keep on claiming you've justified yourself is nonsensical. Ojectivity doesn't mean demonstrating that the only facts you have contradict your argument, but then insisting you're right anyway. :rolleyes:

As for your critcisms of Caitlyn, they're totally out of line, over-blown as usual, uncalled for, over-defensive, far from objective, insulting and idiotic. Even after all your previous semi-eloquent but ineffectual and self-decieving flailing, i've still not approved of a lot of the stick that's come your way from core forum memembers. But to be honest, i'm gonna start joining in soon (if i haven't already ;) :p). For god's sake man, get a grip.