George W. Bush

We'll I'm tired so I'll post about the issues in the morning. But as for the IQ thing.

There is a group, I lost the source of this but I will find it later if anyone doubts, thats sole purpose is to estimate the IQ's of presidents. They do this through vaious forms etc. All of their results are accurate within 5 points. the average IQ of an American citizen is around 125. A few years ago I did a science fair project on does the size of ones head effect their IQ(it was an easy idea) so I know all this stuff about people's IQ's etc. It is not true that about 140 is not accurate. Any IQ number, if calculated properly, is accurate(within 5 points). So yes Ryan, those were actual facts.

I personally look at IQ numbers as a measure of ones ability to make quick and logical decisions. To me Bush does not appear to be able to do this. I think a president should be able to. I'm not saying he isn't fit to do the job, or that Gore was a beter choice, but that I just don't think he can do it as well as this country needs it.

Ok I might as well reply to that other stuff now.
I don't think it would ever happen. If it were to ever happen then something terrible has gone wrong within the US government, something so big that shooting won't fix it. I'm not saying to ban guns in the US. I'm not saying to allow any person(regardless of age, sex, race, are any other kind of statistic) to own a gun. Which is why I'm neutral on the subject. I see no positive side to people owning guns.

I'm saying this prematurely because I haven't read the magazine yet, but I'm going to say it anyway. The way I see it the only case in which a gun would be needed to save a life or family is one in which a gun were to be used by the opressor. But if gun laws were strictly, very very strictly enforced, the opressor would not of had a gun, and thus a gun would not have been needed to stop them.

I personally think guns are fascinating. How they work, what their capable of, the design. It fasicnates me. Be that as it may, I still think that they are an immense problem that the US has allowed to accumulate over the years, but that will never be solved. I don't think guns should be banned in the US now, because that won't fix anything. Like I said before, its already too deep in the hole of guns to claw it's way out. I just think that guns should be severly limited in the US. Severly. But just the same since limiting guns in the US could be a good thing, it could just as well be a bad thing. Which is why I made my comment earlier. Guns are necessary to protect lives today, because the problem of guns availability to everyone has escalated to such a level that if they were to suddenly be banned, there would be a problem. So I repeat again, that I am neutral on the subject. I realize it is a constitutional right, so they should not be banned, but I also realize what they can do and that they should be limited in their availbilty. BUT due to the lack of retraint on the Governments part in the past, no new gun law will ever remedy the situation at present. There will always be gun troubles in the US.

But like Ryan, I feel that this debate is going no where good. It's just going to change people's views of other people on this MOVIE based website. So I'm going to try to limit my posts about this. I don't want it to turn into the Evolution debate that sprung up back in the day.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

How do they determine this? And how do they know it's accurate within 5 points? And why are they the only ones who use a system wherein 125 is the average? And besides, if they test Presidents, how would they know what the US average is? That doesn't sound too legitimate to me.

I'm sorry, but that is a VERY naive view. Humans are power-hungry by nature. What makes you think the US government is more pure than all the others? I agree that we are a special nation, but I think part of that stems from the fact that the government cannot truly oppress us...we can fight back. Like I said: do you really believe the Founding Fathers were wrong, and that there's no risk of it EVER happening?

And yeah, some shooting WILL fix it. "Some shooting" has allowed entire countries to change the reins of power in the past, and it will again in the future, I'll bet.

That's not really the case. Many of them (in fact, from my memory, the majority of the them) involve knives, or people breaking into houses at night. In situations like that, you don't know what's going on. A knife is more than enough to kill a family member. Some testimonials involve people caught in the middle of a crime who are held at gunpoint by civilians until the police can arrive.

Places with high gun ownership levels are almost always shown to have lower crime rates as well. I read awhile back about a town where well over half the people owned (and carried) guns. The crime rate was one of the lowest in the entire nation. If you were a criminal, would you rob someone more likely, or less likely, to own a gun?

I think the requirements for a gun should be, in short: no criminal record (I'm not talking about speeding tickets...I'm talking about real crimes), no history of mental problems, and a required safety course to cover the basics. Other than that, I think it's a slap in the face to our founders, and many great men of the past, to try to ban handguns.

Like I said: Cuba is not free...the people hate it there. They don't have the guns, the government does. Guns allowed the US to become independent, for crying out loud. If the British had them, and we didn't, we wouldn't have had much of a chance (not that we did anyway, but the odds would have been even worse).

I can understand the arguments against them, but I don't know how you can fail to see their benefits...to me, that part has always been obvious. Many lives are saved thanks to handguns each day...but because a few people abuse them, we're gonna ban them? No way...by that logic, we should ban cars, or anything else than is misused now and then, resulting in death.

Wow, I don't visit the board for one day and this thread has exploded.

I'll level with you on guns. People should be allowed to own guns - the ones that were in use at the time the Constitution was written. I think that's reasonable, since they were necessary at the time. But today they are not. Handguns in particular are meant to cause harm. Automobiles aren't. That argument doesn't hold up at all. So, TWT, essentially you are saying that you prefer to have people, particularly children, at risk for a horrible accident, so that these millions of gun owners can go kill wildlife, or keep the gun under their bed so they'll feel safe at night? What does a handgun protect? A shotgun? If guns are banned, they will eventually go away, because they serve no realistic purpose.

These "conservative leaders" (both religious and political) are championing racism, sexism, homophobia, enviromental destruction, greed, and dishonesty under the guise of "American and Christian morality". Senator John Ashcroft was/is in support of the banning of interracial dating!! Since when does that have to do with politics, or Christianity for that matter? How is that moral? Ignorance is not a political issue, nor a religious one. How is allowing police officers to shoot a man 41 times because he was reaching for his wallet American?

And on the other side of that coin, how does the execution of prisoners solve problems? Who benefits? Seems to me like we're just advocating vengeance. And since when were motherless children smiled upon in America? Should unwanted children be born into a system that will spit them into the street with nothing but a crack pipe? What's wrong with this system?

I'm saying that I don't disagree with some Democratic views, but these "conservative" views infuriate me to no end. George W. Bush is just an example of one of these monsters.

I agree with Peter - this debate is going nowhere. But I stand by my views, I will not back down. Anyway, reply whatever you want.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

As I've said twice already, tell that to people who are alive because they happened to have one with them. It's pretty ignorant (no offense meant, you're a smart guy) to claim that they have no use.

Incorrect. Feel safe at night? You know, some people live in dangerous places. Some people really do need that protection. Are you willing to have people at risk of a horrible accident so that we can save time by driving cars?

And no, the logic is not faulty: a gun is created to be used in legal ways: self defense, or hunting...usually the former. Just like a car, if it is not mis-used, there will be no problem.

Did you just make that up? I want some evidence.

Better than killing them before they even have a chance.

Oh, and I've got some news for you: when something is said to have been "cut" all it usually means is that it's not being raised as much as something else, or that it's not being raised as much as was planned at some earlier point...a VERY misleading way to phrase things.

Gotta start backing this stuff up, man. Besides, those views are warped: poor children are shot...we must ban guns! But it's okay to kill the ones that haven't been born yet? And yes, killing a prisoner can solve problems...for one, how do you know it's not a deterrant to others? It is justice, not revenge. It is closure for the family...or would you deny them that so we can keep a murderer alive in prison?

Sourcing a made-up source is no better than just making the stuff up yourself. You really should not get your "factual" information from chain emails.

I believe the email goes a little like this:

In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush.

Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published it's research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.

According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.


Guess what? There is no such thing as the Lovenstein Institute and there is no such thing as the Swanson/Crain System of intelligence ranking.

If I send you an email with made-up stuff in it will you then use the stuff in my email and claim they are actual facts? Because if that is all it takes to win an argument, I'll get my email stating that a study by the Morgenstern Institute of Lower Weehauken, Iowa released a study using the Goodman/Rogers System of intelligence ranking that showed Bill Clinton had an IQ of only 4 while George W. Bush has an IQ of 753.

Just wanted to add that I'll argue about this forever, but It seems a lot of things I'm saying are getting ignored here. What of, for example, the ridiculous claims earlier that implied that Bush was, in fact, free of work for a month? Or how about the claims that he's "cutting" (there's that misleading term again!) certain things...gotta back some of that up, man.

This is obviously written by someone who has never been in a situation where one was needed. I'm not going into details on this but I have been, and thank God I had one. No one is dead, but it was a definite deterrent. A true "realistic purpose" as it were because I would not be writing this if I had not had one.

People seem to believe that if guns are outlawed they will magically disappear from the face of the earth. The people who will abuse guns will always be able to get them. There is NO law that will prevent this. In fact, we have great gun laws but the criminals don't follow the laws... that's what makes them criminals. Banning of guns will only make it harder for decent people to get them... it will not have any effect on criminals because they live outside of the boundaries of the law.

Plain and simply a gun is a tool and nothing more. It is hewn metal and embodies no evil. PEOPLE can choose to use a gun for evil purposes. If your theory that guns will go away somehow happens these same people who use guns maliciously will use knives until you outlaw them, then sticks until you outlaw them, then if all else fails they will beat you to death with their bare hands because these people are evil.

I am NOT an evil person because I believe I have a right to protect myself and my family by any means, including guns, from someone who is trying to take my God given life and/or freedom away from me be they an individual a group or a government.

Speaking to the issue of accidents and children. If you look around your house there are at least 20 things that can kill a child. How does the child know to avoid these? Why aren't all kids dead? Because it is our responsibility as parents to teach them where the dangers lie. It is also our responsibility to keep them from danger. I own guns. They are in a locked cabinet and the only key is on my keyring which stays in my pocket at all times. I keep the bullets in a seperate location (in fact locked in the trunk of my car) so in the million to one chance they get in the cabinet they won't be able to load a gun. I know for a fact they would not do this anyways because I've already taught them gun safety. Accidents happen because of a lack of education and preparation and a lack of basic responsibility.

Steve N, I respect your passion and your position but I personally view it as idealistic. People just don't play by the rules.

Ryan, I do look like a fool now. So I do retract earlier what I said about his IQ, BUT for the record(so I don't look like a complete idiot) the only reason I said that is because not only did I get it in an email, I saw it on the local news a few days before that. But as for the things that I said about IQ's(above 140 and the average) that is true.
I'm not saying the US government is pure, but I just don't see that ever happening. The reason the government does not opress us isn't because we can fight back, it's because it cannot. It cannot because of the very intertwined power the government has given itself. For it to begin to opress it's citizens it would have to of abandoned everything that it is made of. There would be no more Executive, Legislative, or Judical branch of government. There would be no more constitution. The reason the government does not opress the American public is because it does not have the power to do so. I do agree that if it ever did, it would recieve equal opposition from the public, but with guns?? Guns don't solve everything. Companies would cut government support, the Government would loose money etc etc. I just simply don't see that ever being plausible because of how deeprooted the governments powers are. Call me naive all you want, but I just don't see that ever happening.

A stun gun would just of easily of stopped an intruder. For purposes of protection, I feel guns could just as easily be replaced by other things. An air taser for example would be more than adequate in the protection of ones house. And it doesn't resulte in death.

Again I'd like to point out that I never said to ban guns in anyway. Maybe I wasn't clear on it before, but I will make it clearer now. I can see the use of a small pistol in the protection of ones home or family members, I see no reason why a US citizen should not be allowed to own one, BUT I don't see a case in which a high caliber gun would be neccesary. Why do average citizens need to own a double barrled shotgun, or a semi-automatic pistol or machine gun? Do you really need a machine gun to protect your home?? Again, I'd like to point out I'm not saying to ban them, I do feel that everyone has the right to own one, BUT I don't see why people feel necessary to own anything more than a pistol to defend off intruders? (Now what I just said does sound very naive)

That I agree with you on. Again I'd like to point out I was never in favor of banning guns, just that I personally do not find it necessary to own one.

How many Cubans do you know? How do you know that they hate it?

I agree completely, which is why banning guns is stupid. I said something along these lines earlier, but I guess no one noticed.
[Edited by TWTCommish on 08-30-2001]

I didn't question that part about averages and the accuracy of scores above 140, etc. (but you knew that. You were just reiterating it since it was questioned).

I hate IQ tests, by the way. When my mother was getting her Master's in Psychology, her and her fellow students gave me that stupid test over and over again to fulfill their class requirements. I think that was a driving factor for my moving in with my father when my parent's divorced.

At any rate, I guess I couldn't be the leader of the free world because my IQ is sub-Al Gore level (128, if I recall correctly), but I didn't want to be President anyway. I just want to make silly movies. I don't think one has to have a high IQ for that, do they?

I edited your post to fix some of the quote tags...hope you don't mind.

Who says the government has to stay the way it is? Lots of governments are perfectly okay at some point. Think about this: the government takes over half of some people's money. Many, many people are dependent on the government for survival. We are slowly moving towards communism, where everyone puts in money (whether they want to or not), that is then re-distributed to everyone else.

This trend towards communism is quite clear...and, of course, it's not much of a stretch to go from communism to an oppressive dictatorship! Will it happen? No, not the way things are now...but that does't mean it CAN'T happen. Think about this: what has made America above the others? Freedom of all kinds. As before, I'm gonna side with Mr. Jefferson on this one.

Well, for one, a stun gun isn't as frightening to a potential criminal. I dunno about you, but if I were held at "stun gun point," I'd consider making a break for it...because it's worth the chance of getting stunned if I can get away. If it were a "real" gun, though, I wouldn't even consider it.

But overall, I don't think it's fair to tell people what level of protection they're allowed to have like that. There are limits, but in my opinion, if you're going to allow them to defend themselves, you should allow them to do so with something more frightening to criminals. Maybe a stun gun would work, but I still think they should be able to make their own choice in that matter.

It's like the death penalty: maybe, if someone murdered a friend or family member of mine, I would want the murderer kept alive and in prison anyway...but I also wouldn't begrudge anyone who felt differently, and wanted the criminal dead.

Well, a shotgun, actually, is probably a bit better, in some ways, than a pistol. It sprays, doesn't it? Seems to me that makes it easier to hit something you're aiming at. In situations where someone is struggling with you, or running from you, or something of the sort, that can really come in handy.

And yeah, I think it's a bit crazy to have a machine gun in your home. I don't understand why it's necessary at all to have something like that...but I still think it's someone's right to own one. Besides, most guns used for personal protection are simple handguns. Maybe powerful ones, but certainly not rifles/machine guns.

I know none...but seeing as how thousands about thousands (literally...really, truly, literally) have died in shark-infested waters trying to escape from it, it can't be all that nice. The standards of living are incredibly poor when compared to the standards we enjoy. We have problems with drunk drivers and criminals in guns...they have problems with finding enough food at times.

I should have made it more clear: I do, indeed, see what you're saying, but even though you don't want them banned, you still seem to think that, in some situations, it could work. IE: we'd never put up with it, so it's not practical...but we should put up with it.

Yeah, they're a bit shaky. I took the one on IQTest.com awhile back and scored pretty high...but there's no way it's all that accurate. Needs to be much longer, I'd imagine. Maybe I'll take a real one someday, but it's not much of a concern of mine. It's all in how much of your intelligence you use. I think the two smartest (based on IQ) people ever (on record, that is) both ended up in very menial jobs, writing books no one read.

One last thing for me to be picky about: The part about stun guns not killing people should say that stun guns don't usually kill people. People have died after being stunned. It's relatively rare, but it still happens.

And stun guns are being used as torture devices by several groups that have them (from police departments to random sickos), so they aren't all sunshine and lollipops, either.

Here's an interesting thought, though, in regards to firearms. Since the majority (about 55%) of gun-related deaths are intentional suicides, would those people necessarily still be alive if they didn't have access to a gun? Or would they have simply used other means to kill themselves? The suicide rate in the United States is considerably lower than many European countries (and Japan) which have much tougher gun control laws, so the idea that easy access to guns causes these suicides to be successful is questionable.

Another thought, even though 700 kids under 17 die each year from firearm-related deaths, is that enough justification to ban firearms? Sure, it's tragic, but over 2,000 kids under 15 die in car crashes each year and over 1,000 drown each year, and about 700 other kids are slaughtered with knives, blunt objects or bare hands.

Let's keep in mind, too, that even gun control advocates say that 2% of gun-related deaths are self-defense, that would work out to about 425 successful self-defenses with a firearm per year. Not to mention that this stat only includes successful self-defenses that resulted in a death for the aggressor. Surely one does not need to persent a corpse in order to have successfully defended themselves with a gun. Even many gun control advocates admit that approximately 84,000 successful self-defenses with a firearm occur each year that do not result in death. That's almost 8 times the number of non-suicide gun-related deaths each year.

Now that gets into a murky area there. Would these self-defenses have been successful with something other than a firearm? There's no way to know that without having been at each incident and been able to replay each incident with different weapons.

So, I would say that it is an issue with a lot of gray (just like pretty much every issue there is). I don't personally like guns, but this isn't a black-and-white issue, so it's hard to know what the "right" thing to do really is.

I never said it couldn't happen(I'm not implying you that you think I said that), I just said I didn't see it happening, which apparently you don't either.

Thats just the thing, guns have earned a reputation, stun guns and air tasers are new, no one really knows what their capable of. An air taser will f**k you up. An air taser will seriously make somoene who has been shot by one think about doing whatever it was that made them deserve it, and most likely not do it again. Sure it may not look threating, but a stun gun or air taser can leave a person unconcious for hours. I'm not saying ban guns and replace them with electrical devices, I just think some people should consider them an option. I was reading up on the rare stun gun death, and the reason these people die is related to personal disorders in which the persons body is not able to sustain that amount of electricty. They die due to a genetic disorder. Tragic yes, but they are still much safer than guns.

A double barrled shotgun, when shot at centermass(the center of ones torso) will blow a man in half. A close rang blast from a shotgun is almost always fatal. Shotguns are raw power. I personally don't think people should be allowed to wield them. Owning one just because it is more likely to hit something is stupid. If your going to own a gun I think it should be required that you can properly aim your firearm so that a spray weapon wouldn't be needed to compensate for bad aim.

When I was in 7th grade, a Cuban teacher came to my school to give a speech on imigrants and imigration. She explained that the media exploits Cuba's hardships much more than they actually are. It's not like they have guns put to their heads daily and are forced to do things. She said that she has lived there all her life and has never once seen a person publicly shot, or had even seen a gun fired in any way other than a recreational way. She then explained that the only reason people flee is because places like America offer more money for jobs that they do in Cuba. I'm not saying I'm gonna rush onto the next plane to go live in Cuba, but the media really does exploit what is going on in other countries much worse than it really is.

Banning guns won't do anything about suicide. Someone who is willing to kill themselves won't let the unavailability of a gun stop them.
[Edited by TWTCommish on 08-30-2001]

Oh, I see it happening alright...IF guns are banned. Seems hard to believe, but that's because none of us have ever experienced anything like it.

And yeah, people should consider stun guns...but, for me, I want something that the criminal will run from right away. I'd go with a gun.

Even people who have taken classes will miss at times. What about a struggle? I can imagine, without much difficulty, how it would be useful to have a shotgun when your adrenaline is pumping and you can hardly think, let alone aim with a high amount of precision.

I personally would not use a shotgun...but, again, I don't have a problem with anyone who does use one.

Living in a country where you've never seen someone forced to do something with a gun to their head isn't much to brag about. Besides; it does happen. Many people have come forward and said so.

If you don't believe Cuba is messed up, you will after you hear this: according to their law, the parents are not the legal guardians of their children...the government is. Castro is basically their legal father. The parents do not own their children in any form...they simply watch over them. Even if this is only a legal method, it is still VERY unsettling, and I think it speaks volumes about the thinking of their government.

Oh, and that's not all: from what I believe I've heard, Cuba's government controls their media/newspapers.

Anyway, on the subject of communism: there's no doubt it's a failure. Some friends of mine went to China awhile back, and they had to bring anything they wanted with them...clothes, toilet paper, some food, asprin, etc. Things that we consider to be necessities are difficult to get over in China. Cuba runs under a similar government...and China also has the "media ban" type thing in place.

Well for the record on Communism, I think it was an excellent, very efficent system. I for one would not want to live under a Communist system, but if you think about how it all works, it is extremely efficent.

About Cuba. I'm sure life there is rough, but don't believe everything the media sells you. I know it is messed up there, and the government runs the show, but if you believe they go around doing public beatings(not saying you do, just a general comment) then your mistaken.

Communism is not practical on anything more than a very small, specific class of people. People love to talk about how it's a great concept, and all that, but it's really not. It goes against human nature, and the tpes of things that motivate us to become productive.

It's the equivalent of saying "let's build buildings in the sky!" Sure, it'll save us lots of space, but humans don't fly...so it's not practical. In both instances, the way humans are has to be turned on it's head for the idea to work. Not only that, but Communism always leads to terrible things. It's inevitable.

As for Cuba: I don't think people are beaten all the time, but I do think there are a lot of horrible things going on that are not seen. Like I said: the government owns the children, and there is no freedom of the press. In my opinion, those are two basic human rights. Cuba is a nightmare for human rights.

up again.

I didn't think there was much of a debate left on this thread?

I think by far the best debate thread on here was the 'Evolution' thread that Zeph started as a continuation of one at James' site. That was a very long thread. That was back in the early days though. TWT would you consider that the first debate? It was the first I was in.

What ever happened to Jamesglewisf? Is he ok? Is FrappyDoo back up?

He started on here? I don't remember an Evolution thread here...just on James' site. James has been very busy with his work, and had to shut FrappyDoo! down because it was taking time away from his job/family. It's a shame, but I think he made the right choice. He may return here someday, and there's always the possibility of FrappyDoo! re-opening, but I honestly don't think either will happen anytime soon. Anyway, I dunno what the first debate on this site was...there were lots of disagreements early on about movies and such, so I dunno where the line is drawn on "debate" exactly. It must be pretty old, though, if I don't even remember it anymore. Hehe.

http://www.movieforums.com/forums/sh...7&goto=newpost

That was it.