|
||||||||||
|
Title: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by DonnaHar on Sep 26th, 2005, 5:28pm http://www.lovenstein.org/report/ The site appears to be genuine, but I'm not going to search sources for very long. You be the judge. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by nani on Sep 26th, 2005, 5:32pm Wow... interesting. Both my grandkids scored higher that Dubya. I'm not surprised. Of course, they both scored higher than me, too. :-[ |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by vig on Sep 26th, 2005, 5:35pm These aren't the results of standardized IQ tests. I'm not a Bush fan, but that's not his real IQ. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Carl_D on Sep 26th, 2005, 5:42pm Learning you are much smarter than some American President's = Priceless. ;;D 8) |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Chillrmn1 on Sep 26th, 2005, 5:47pm "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." George W. Bush 8-5-2004 Priceless, absolutely priceless! LOL |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Bob P on Sep 26th, 2005, 5:50pm http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/presidentialiq.htm liberals grabbing at fiction! Carter is the only President who has released his actual IQ. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Jonny on Sep 26th, 2005, 6:04pm on 09/26/05 at 17:50:04, Bob P wrote:
Grasping at straws.....LMMFAO ;;D Vig, your a stand up guy ;) |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Tim_Z on Sep 26th, 2005, 6:43pm on 09/26/05 at 17:28:55, DonnaHar wrote:
Why even post something like this? A huge can of worms. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Jonny on Sep 26th, 2005, 6:47pm on 09/26/05 at 18:43:43, Tim_Z wrote:
When you got nothing....Make it up (See link below) http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/JeffersonParishonMTPviaDU.wmv |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by DonnaHar on Sep 26th, 2005, 6:51pm This is a carry-over from another thread. Many non-ch posts do open cans of worms, but they can be informative as well as fun. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Jonny on Sep 26th, 2005, 6:54pm on 09/26/05 at 18:51:51, DonnaHar wrote:
How can lies be informative? |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Mr. Happy on Sep 26th, 2005, 7:02pm on 09/26/05 at 18:54:19, Jonny wrote:
Not sure about informative, but they sure as hell have kept me alive and un-neutered after more'n a quarter century of marriage. Bill Clinton made oral sex NOT count as real sex. Really. How'd we let this guy go????? At least I'm smarter than a Bush....or a Stump. Theoretically. RJ |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by AussieBrian on Sep 26th, 2005, 7:15pm "You can't stand on both sides of a barbed-wire fence without something nasty happening to you." "I deny the allegations and I deny the alligators." Jo Bjelke-Petersen, ex-Queensland premier. RIP. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by DonnaHar on Sep 26th, 2005, 7:36pm So, how do we weed the lies from the truth? |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Jonny on Sep 26th, 2005, 7:45pm on 09/26/05 at 19:36:33, DonnaHar wrote:
You could start by not posting crap that even you doubt that is true. on 09/26/05 at 17:28:55, DonnaHar wrote:
|
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Jimmy B. on Sep 26th, 2005, 8:01pm on 09/26/05 at 19:15:30, AussieBrian wrote:
reminds of one of my Granddad's sayings...he who walk middle of the road. Get hit by truck. Both ways... But I believe a lot of people, myself included, walk the middle of the road when it comes to politics. I'm not on the far right, nor on the far left. I believe in a lot conservative ideas as well as liberal ideas and when it comes time for election vote (who I think anyway) has the best record on my views. I don't blindly vote all Republican lines or Democratic lines. So I guess I get hit by truck....both ways & once in the behind by whoever wins. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Pinkfloyd on Sep 26th, 2005, 8:02pm on 09/26/05 at 19:36:33, DonnaHar wrote:
Some of the most intelligent people in the world never graduated high school, let alone stepped foot into a college classroom. This group figures out a way to take points "off" an IQ for "simply" having a MBA. Spread the gas, someone will lite the fire http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b392/psiloscribe/Death_by_fire_by_clairebearer.gif Bobw |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by AussieBrian on Sep 26th, 2005, 8:09pm Mind you, having a higher IQ than a politician is no real claim to fame. I'm a successful fisherman, which makes me smarter than the fish. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by nani on Sep 26th, 2005, 8:25pm on 09/26/05 at 17:50:04, Bob P wrote:
Perhaps. But I still contend that my grandkids are smarter than Dubya. :P |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Carl_D on Sep 26th, 2005, 8:25pm Nah. Not a biggie claim. Though maybe I should wear the robe of 'prophet' ::) since the night they announced Bush won over Gore I looked straight at my roommate and fellow musician Jeremy and said "We're going to war with Iraq." That was before 9/11. It didn't take a genius to figure that one out. The first Iraq offensive in '91 (when we SHOULD have taken Saddam out) was during G.H.W.'s Presidency. I don't care for George W., but I do care about my country and I support our troops wherever they may be. If we left Iraq now, the insurgents would take it over. There is good and bad in every political party. The last election... it literally made me sick. The choice between picking Bush or Kerry was like "Do I stick my hand in the meat slicer or grinder?" Lose the hand either way. JMHO. Peace, MackDaggity |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Charlie on Sep 26th, 2005, 9:33pm I do love debunkers. http://www.kolobok.wrg.ru/smiles/personal/big_boss.gif?SSImageQuality=Full One makes a mistake calling him stupid. He's a major PITA and not too dumb to take advantage of his position. You don't need brains to win the Presidency when you have Prescott Bush and Daddy for ancestors. Real old school ruling class. http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/grouphugg.gif?SSImageQuality=Full Charlie |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by sandie99 on Sep 27th, 2005, 1:42am on 09/26/05 at 17:42:53, Carl_D wrote:
Amen to that! ;;D |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by BobG on Sep 27th, 2005, 3:12am Quote:
And he was the only President that knew what IQ meant. Quote:
Good advice. It’s what I do. I don’t believe most of the things I say. Quote:
Ask Rove. Quote:
I’m registered Republican. That way I can vote in the Republican primaries. I always vote to help the worst candidate to win. Then in the General elections I can vote for the best Democrat. Quote:
If we left Iraq 50 years from now, the insurgents would take over. It’s what they do. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by deltadarlin on Sep 27th, 2005, 7:50am On G.W. Bush's IQ (or Lack Thereof) Netlore Archive: Forwarded email attributed to the nonexistent 'Lovenstein Institute' claims a recent report proves G.W. Bush has the lowest IQ of any modern president Description: Email joke Status: False Circulating since: July 2001 Analysis: See below Email text contributed by Jason McCrory, 16 July 2001: Report: President Bush Has Lowest IQ of All Presidents of Past 50 Years If late night TV comedy is an indicator, then there has never been as widespread a perception that a president is not intellectually qualified for the position he holds as there is with President GW Bush. 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 its 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. The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points: 147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) 132 Harry Truman (D) 122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) 174 John F. Kennedy (D) 126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 155 Richard M. Nixon (R) 121 Gerald Ford (R) 175 James E. Carter (D) 105 Ronald Reagan (R) 098 George HW Bush (R) 182 William J. Clinton (D) 091 George W. Bush (R) The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176. Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G. W. Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis. "All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, so in many ways that made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We had to rely more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking." The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, think-tank includes high-caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist. This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001, and released on July 9, 2001, to subscribing member universities and organizations within the education community. Comments: You'd think Americans would have grown weary of "Bush is an idiot" jokes by now, but the popularity of this forwarded email suggests otherwise. It's obviously satire, though in a few cases it has been posted around the Net as factual and, strange as it seems, hotly debated. I have found no evidence of a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania or anywhere else. There's no trace of a "Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist" or "Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, world-respected psychiatrist" — not in this world, at any rate. All of the facts and figures appear to have been fabricated. Some versions of the text claim it was published by the Associated Press, which is certainly not the case. The apparent source of this work of fiction was www.linkydinky.com, which is home, appropriately enough, to a humor mailing list. I always tell my daughter, "If you can't back up what you say with facts, keep your mouth shut". |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by ghost62 on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:18am Shoot by those lets guess standards I would have a what 80 IQ instead of my actual 164. Boy lets be accurate and guess and say it must be true. 0 college except buisness math at university of Ill. Chicago. Trade schools, and Navy Schools. Ojt and self taught, mostly I guess I am a dummy. ;;D ;;D ;;D |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by LeLimey on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:32am on 09/27/05 at 08:18:50, ghost62 wrote:
God give my strength!! :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by ghost62 on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:41am on 09/27/05 at 08:32:09, LeLimey wrote:
[smiley=spit.gif] [smiley=oops.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif] [smiley=hewey.gif] [smiley=lick.gif] Helen you know you have to say it so go ahead. ;;D |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Bob P on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:48am Quote:
Yet he wasn't smart enough to stay out of Playboy magazine! |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by nani on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:51am Oh come on, Bob... I'll take lusting in his heart over lying about blowjobs and war, anyday. Jimmy had integrity. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Drk^Angel on Sep 27th, 2005, 10:33am Ya know what's funny. If these were actual IQ scores from the standard Stanford-Binet or Wechsler tests, it would only prove that lil Bush is of average or normal intelligence, and most of the other modern presidents were of superior intelligence or geniuses. Seems the creator of that hoax wasn't really tryin' to make him look stupid, just dumber than the rest of the crooks. PFDAN........................................... Drk^Angel |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Charlie on Sep 27th, 2005, 4:11pm Quote:
No. George Bush is not an idiot, he's an extreme GOP icon that has zero compassion for you, me and the little guy. He doesn’t mind saying stupid things though and telling us it's our problem not his, to conserve gas by driving less, and the incredibly idiotic idea that lengthening daylight saving time is a good energy saver. Encouraging making more efficient cars like Brazil for example, doesn't seem to register. Let's see; what else can the administration do that makes no sense whatsoever? How about their new FBI anti-porn task force? There's a stunning example of Bush's continued war on his own people which is probably a payback to Jesus types that think God is a Republican. It's dangerous too. Charlie |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by karma on Sep 27th, 2005, 5:16pm Lets see now, everyone that can vote voted Right? or was its somewhere around 40% again? That must mean that 60% or so don't give a sh!t who is in the office. The U.S. gets who it deserves as the boss, no more and no less. Don't blame the people that voted the president in blame those that didn't vote. In fact don't blame anybody. Do something about it instead of bitching. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Charlie on Sep 27th, 2005, 5:20pm You're right. Isn't it Australia that requires 100% turnout? If it were the case here, we'd have national health insurance too. I bet one could campaign successfully on that alone. Charlie |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by deltadarlin on Sep 27th, 2005, 7:36pm Yes, NHS (using the term broad-sweeping) can be good (if you cannot afford private health insurance), but it also has it's downside~long waiting periods, choice of doctors can be very limited, you don't "just go to a specialist", you have to be referred. If you move to another area, you can't just go pick out a new doctor of your own liking, you have to be switched. I have friends under the NHS in several countries and they all say that it does have distinct disadvantages. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Charlie on Sep 27th, 2005, 7:45pm People go out of their way here all the time telling us how awful National Heath is in Britain and Canada. They don't want to lose it though. I'd be happy to give it a whirl. Charlie |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by AussieBrian on Sep 27th, 2005, 7:56pm on 09/27/05 at 17:20:23, Charlie wrote:
Yes, and there's excellent arguments both for and against. Personally I believe that if you don't vote you've given away any right to complain about the government. Vote or shut up, I say. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Jonny on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:13pm on 09/27/05 at 19:45:02, Charlie wrote:
Tell that to the guy that NEEDS an operation by july 3rd, but they cant get him in till Aug 10th. Please, anyone in Canada or Britain tell me if im wrong. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by AussieBrian on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:23pm Not forgetting the 10 month waiting-list for a maternity suite. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by maffumatt on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:31pm on 09/27/05 at 17:20:23, Charlie wrote:
you wouldnt really want a 100% turnout would you? Think about it, all those horrible religous people and rual people voteing.....Gasp.......Liberalism would become irrevelent |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by maffumatt on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:34pm on 09/27/05 at 19:45:02, Charlie wrote:
How much do you pay for your health care now Charlie? |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by broomhilda on Sep 27th, 2005, 8:35pm on 09/27/05 at 20:13:08, Jonny wrote:
Correct, I can't speak for the rest of Canada but I can speak for BC, where some waitlists for operations are up and over two years :-/ |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Charlie on Sep 28th, 2005, 2:21am Quote:
No. About 65% of the country is liberal or have attitudes. It's true in most societies. Conservatives understand that so they treat it as a mission. Aside from the bible belt they have an uphill struggle. Liberals though, have been complacent and need to become so involved. Being fair isn't a GOP priority. Democrats need to become as good at character assassination as Republicans. We need to stop being nice guys. Until we do, the country suffers. Matt: I pay nearly $3,000 a year for good medical insurance and it seems everytime I turn around my co-pays are on the rise. HMOs aren't on my side and it's taken a real chunk out of my life. Charlie |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by LeLimey on Sep 28th, 2005, 3:37am on 09/27/05 at 20:13:08, Jonny wrote:
As you quite rightly say Jonny there are advantages and disadvantages. It does seem though that only the bad stuff hits the headlines. To see PG on the NHS there is a 13 month waiting list. To go privately and pay there is an 11-12 month waiting list. Not a huge difference. Having said that however he saw Jasper within a month of us speaking to him here, he would have seen him the same week which was thwarted by us having to get a referral. He would have seen Jasper within two weeks but we came to Dallas so it meant a 3 and a half week wait to see him.. not bad by anyones standards! I have never had to wait more than 6 weeks to see any specialist and for urgent referrals (like last year for coeliac disease) I had to wait 3 days. Where the NHS comes into its own is on cost of meds. You pay no more than £6.75 for a prescription regardless of quantity. So I could get one vial or imitrex or 50 and they would both cost me £6.75. You can also buy a pre payment certificate which is £90 per year and that covers every piece of medication you need. I pay in my taxes of course BUT my out of pocket expenses are £90 per year. Children get free prescriptions up to 16 or as long as they are in FT education and to see three specialists bone, gastro and neuro and my own gp and any other stuff I may need.. is "free".. its not perfect but its bloody fantastic and I won't knock it. Oh and just to make you laugh I have private medical insurance as a perk of my job too.. and to see a gastro via that would have taken longer! Reason being the gastro I see (who is really good) works only one day a week in private medicine and I wouldn't want to see anyone else! |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by maffumatt on Sep 28th, 2005, 6:35am on 09/28/05 at 02:21:31, Charlie wrote:
Would like to see some links to that 65% number, and from someplace other than Democraticunderground.com. I find that very hadr to believe. Most liberal demographics are large metropolitan areas where alot of people live of public assistance. $3000 a year is a small price to pay for your health, I pay a max of $5000 but I get choices. We have a prototype of national healthcare. It is call the VA. Visit a VA hospital sometime and ask the patients if they like being stuck in a goverment bureaucracy. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by deltadarlin on Sep 28th, 2005, 7:25am And one still has to take into account the disparaties in the populations of these countries. US- 295,734,134 UK- 60,441,457 AUS- 20,090,437 Tennessee tried to go to a uniform healtcare system that would include everyone and it almost bankrupted the state. At the end of its first year, more than 1.2 million people were enrolled, but the program ran a $99 million deficit. The ONLY thing that will work in the US is to revamp the current private systems, reign in burgeoning costs and make it *less* profitable to sue for improper treatment of ingrown toenails. If you don't believe me, look that information up yourself, the US is the most *sue* happy country in the world. And Helen, while you are spot on about what you pay for drugs ($11.92 USD), you pay that for ALL/EACH of your prescriptions. The MAX I pay for any drug (doesn't matter what it cost is $50.00). I also have some drugs that I pay less than $2-3.00 for a prescription. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Jeepgun on Sep 28th, 2005, 8:24am Right on, Delta Darlin. The TennCare debacle was horrible, and the mess is STILL going on. >:( |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by rickyshot on Sep 28th, 2005, 8:36am I have lived in Canada for 15 years and the biggest thing about here that is good is the social support. I went broke had poor health and lost everything in part due to the fact I was the working poor in the US with no health insurance. All the talk in the world will not convince me that the richest country in the world cannot do better for their citizens about health care well I guess the response to the recent hurricaines is a clue. Free health care is wonderful and we get very good care really no worse than the US here on the whole. You have to have lived in the two countries to know. All the rhetoric is bullshit. Just live it and know. American screaming socialist bullshit. They just play into the hands of big business and lobbyists and the docs and insurance companies are having a field day. This pulling oneself up by his bootstraps is cute talk especially when you are not handing out bootstraps. We send drugs and medical care to other countries but still insist Americans pay dearly for it. What a crock..... |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by LeLimey on Sep 28th, 2005, 9:28am on 09/28/05 at 07:25:32, deltadarlin wrote:
Sorry Carolyn I think I gave the wrong impression. I would pay for each different item, ie pay once for verap, once for imigran but the quantities of each drug don't count. So I could get 600 verap or 20 and pay the same price regardless ditto for imi. HOWEVER.. I pay £90 per year regardless of anything else and never pay for any other prescription charges. It does work here, It's been going here for a long time now. I won't knock how your system works because I don't understand it but we all pay National Health contributions out of our taxes and the amount you pay is in proportion to what you earn. I'm not sure how much it is but for the sake of a figure say 5%. My contributions are deducted at source and that's the last time I think about them! |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by floridian on Sep 28th, 2005, 11:36am on 09/28/05 at 07:25:32, deltadarlin wrote:
You are absolutely right. In many countries around the world, when the doctor amputates the wrong limb, you cannot sue for one Cent (or Peso or Yuan). In most countries, when the pharmaceutical companies lie throught their teeth and kill or maim hundreds or thousands of people in pursuit of profit, the individual is powerless to ask a court for restitution. |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Charlie on Sep 28th, 2005, 12:45pm The 65% number has been around for some time and I believe based on the idea that in most cases the percentage would show up in most of your precious up or down votes and if everyone voted. Things like national health, social security, abortion rights, real separation of church and state, real free media, books, gay and lesbian rights,(all guys like the latter.....) :D no "decency" FBI squads, no more war on drugs, no stupid attempts to stifle science and stem cell research, no tying aid to condom sales, no cutting back safety, overtime, pensions, no doing whatever drug companies decree, no cronyism on the level currently displayed, no cutting veterans hospitals, and "unfunding" proven government programs that have kept the country stable for 70 years. National health? Ask societies that have it to vote it out. No contest. I've heard even here how terrible others think it is that we don't have national health. Only in America does the government try to scare the bejeesus out the poor and retired from buying drugs from Canada, whose Toronto citizens are evidently dropping in the streets from unsafe drugs. Even Euro conservatives realize some form of national heath care is needed. Bush's people so much better at inflicting pain than feeling it, so much better at taking things apart than putting them together, so much better at defending "intelligent design" as a theology than practicing it as a policy.-Tom Friedman, nyt. "If you took all three major parties in Britain - Labor, Liberals and Conservatives - "their views on God, guns, gays, the death penalty, national health care and the environment would all fit somewhere inside the Democratic Party,"--From a Tom Friedman column after the 2004 election. I don't know where he got it. Friedman is not a supra-liberal. He still isn't anti-Iraq, for example. Hopeful. (Don't hit me with guns. I'm not anti-gun) You and I have our fun. Don't we? http://smaylik.by.ru/i/29.gif?SSImageQuality=Full Charlie |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Bob P on Sep 28th, 2005, 1:54pm A Marine squad was marching north of Basra when they came upon an insurgent Iraqi soldier badly injured and unconscious. Nearby, on the opposite side of the road, was an American Marine in similar but less serious state. The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the Marine was asked what had happened. The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. Seeing each other we both took cover in the ditches alongside the road. I yelled to him that, Saddam Hussein was a miserable lowlife scumbag" , and he yelled back that Senator Ted Kennedy is a fat, good-for-nothing, left wing liberal drunk." "We were standing there shaking hands when a truck hit us..." |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by Jeepgun on Sep 28th, 2005, 1:55pm LMAO! [smiley=laugh.gif] |
||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Here they are folks..IQ's of Presidents Post by maffumatt on Sep 28th, 2005, 10:04pm on 09/28/05 at 12:45:08, Charlie wrote:
You bet your guns we do Charlie & I wouldn't have it any other way. Still no link to the number. Maybe years ago when there was a solid democratic south. I beleive it was Howard Dean that made the comment that he couldn't understand why the south voted against their economic intrests. Its easy they have values that are not in line with the Liberal philosophy such as abortion, religion, and family values. If the extreme left wasn't so far out there they would have a better chance of winning an election or two. The left isn't as mainstream as they like to think they are. |
||||||||||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |