Proof Bush Stole the Election

[Bort]

And who other than Clinton gave the Chinese the technology to launch ICBMs? Who in turn gave the NK nuclear technology and the "how-to" manual for building missiles?

Yahoshua, you are way way way off the mark with these statements. China has had operational ICBM's since 1981, I'd be really interested to see how you can lay that on Clinton if you can. The Clinton administration did agree to give the North Koreans a light water reactor of a design which was incapable of producing weapons grade plutonium, in return for the N.Koreans shutting down their breeder reactor (of a Russian design) at Yongbyon. For more information on the Korean standoff I highly recommend watching this episode of Frontline. The website also has tons of great info and interviews.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by scandium

I think this paragraph, from one of Skybird's links, sums it up nicely:

I'm not familiar with the particular test they used, but generally a score of 100 is the median value which puts GWB just slightly below "average"; so he is not actually retarded, as some believe he is, only that he is better suited to managing a lemonaide stand rather than the world's most powerful country. But IQ tests can't factor in wealth, affluence, political connections, and being the hereditary next-in-line to a well accomplished and well connected former President who also happens to be his daddy.

Too bad he screwed things up so badly that he soured any chance of Jeb succeeding him in '08. Thus I expect the Repubs to run a lemon who will lose in '08 (any (R) will be seen as a lemon after 8 years of Republican disasterous governing), and Jeb can then, after a couple terms in the Senate, continue the Bush dynasty in '12 or '16 after the Repubs have had a chance to blame the fallout for George Dubya's failed leadership on his democratic successor.

That's my prediction. I'll have to check back in 6-10 years to see if I nailed it on the money or not

Eh, hear-hear - my prediction, too (except that thing on Dubya).

Note that I quoted two different studies. One is indirectly concluding on IQ by analysing all material about a given person, speeches, articles, biography, here the author came up with ridiculously high scores, the important thing here is to look not at the absolute values, but the relation between values, and than it matches, roughly, the second study (which you quoted), which probably used more direct input (IQ-tests) people may have done for axample at university, shows more believable scores. IQ-tests at university are not uncommon, at least in Germany, I had three tests myself to earn points for participating in experiments, a certain number of such points was needed to get access to the half-time-exams (purpose is to supply ongoing reasearch works with a constant stream of willing rats, eh, subjects, I mean). for the latter design, ordinary clinical IQ-tests will be used. Outcome depends on the design of the test (culture-free or not, knowledge-free or not, focus on language or mathematics or abstract thinking or graphical presentation, time-limits or not). Ask 100 psychologists what intelligence is, and you get 30-40 different answers. Some IQ tests say more about the author than about the examined subject
Intelligence shifts and changes with age. A score of 91 is close to the limit when kids would be sent to special schools for mentally handicapped children and those with intellectual deficits.
but all that is academic only. Far more valid and interesting is the finding of Bush's repertoire of words he uses when analysising all his speeches, and statements and recordings. What was said about him: 6500 words, compared to an avergae of 11800 or soething like that. This deficit could mean two thingS: either his mental flexibility and intellectual capacity is seriously handicapped, or he is extremely clever and knows that those people he adresses are mentally inflexible or intellctually handicapped, so that he takes care of getting understood and reduces the niveau of his language to the needed lower level.

[The Avon Lady]

Did you miss my prior link, Skybird? :hmm:

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Eh, hear-hear - my prediction, too (except that thing on Dubya).

Note that I quoted two different studies. One is indirectly concluding on IQ by analysing all material about a given person, speeches, articles, biography, here the author came up with ridiculously high scores, the important thing here is to look not at the absolute values, but the relation between values, and than it matches, roughly, the second study (which you quoted), which probably used more direct input (IQ-tests) people may have done for axample at university, shows more believable scores. IQ-tests at university are not uncommon, at least in Germany, I had three tests myself to earn points for participating in experiments, a certain number of such points was needed to get access to the half-time-exams (purpose is to supply ongoing reasearch works with a constant stream of willing rats, eh, subjects, I mean). for the latter design, ordinary clinical IQ-tests will be used. Outcome depends on the design of the test (culture-free or not, knowledge-free or not, focus on language or mathematics or abstract thinking or graphical presentation, time-limits or not). Ask 100 psychologists what intelligence is, and you get 30-40 different answers. Some IQ tests say more about the author than about the examined subject
Intelligence shifts and changes with age. A score of 91 is close to the limit when kids would be sent to special schools for mentally handicapped children and those with intellectual deficits.
but all that is academic only. Far more valid and interesting is the finding of Bush's repertoire of words he uses when analysising all his speeches, and statements and recordings. What was said about him: 6500 words, compared to an avergae of 11800 or soething like that. This deficit could mean two thingS: either his mental flexibility and intellectual capacity is seriously handicapped, or he is extremely clever and knows that those people he adresses are mentally inflexible or intellctually handicapped, so that he takes care of getting understood and reduces the niveau of his language to the needed lower level.

More like 1 fake and 1 possible, yet to be confirmed, study.

[bradclark1]

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002512.html

What has this got to do with Clinton supposedly giving Korea nuclear and missile technology?

If there's nothing to gain by keeping a cold-war sized military then why are the resources of the active military we have now stretched so thin?

Because it wasn't designed to invade two countries at once for an expanded time.

It's more expensive to re-build and grow the military back to the stage it was during the cold war than it would've been to have kept the military at the size that it was.

Who says we are going to build up the military to pre CW levels?

The issue of firearms is in the individuals opinion so it's not worth arguing. I personally don't see why a civilian
needs automatic weapons but that's just me. The militia part is covered by the National Guard. In 230 years concepts change.

And thx for pointing out that Bush hasn't done anything for Sudan, Zimbabwe and the Congo. Once we're done with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea we can head to those nations to help or we can pass a draft and do it all at once.

We are not an evil empire and we are not the worlds police man. I'd say that 99.99999999% of America would disagree with your idea. Even if you were president and tried it you'd be impeached because of mental impairment. Besides that the world wouldn't stand for it and you would have a chance to play militia and use your mg's because there would be a lot of people with different accents in the white house.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Besides that the world wouldn't stand for it and you would have a chance to play militia and use your mg's because there would be a lot of people with different accents in the white house.

What? Kissinger's planning on making a comeback?!

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

What? Kissinger's planning on making a comeback?!

The Govenator will be moving in.

[bradclark1]

Ha ha Ha

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

The Govenator will be moving in.

Vell, zat's zeh zame accent zen. :p

[Yahoshua]

What has this got to do with Clinton supposedly giving Korea nuclear and missile technology?

Maybe this link will do better then....

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/nuclear.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/clinton-china-timeline

Because it wasn't designed to invade two countries at once for an expanded time.

WW2? We invaded continents for extended periods of time.

The issue of firearms is in the individuals opinion so it's not worth arguing. I personally don't see why a civilian needs automatic weapons but that's just me. The militia part is covered by the National Guard. In 230 years concepts change.


Not quite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...National_Guard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

The militia was reserved for the power of the states, NOT to be controlled by the Federal Gov't. And whether organized, or unorganized, the Militia was funded by the state (or in this case private citizens). The National Guard cannot be the modern civilian militia if the Federal Gov't has control over or funds National Guard activities. The militia is to be distinct from a regular army, so the federalization of the militias is not in accordance with the original intent of it's use.

We are not an evil empire and we are not the worlds police man. I'd say that 99.99999999% of America would disagree with your idea.


Taken a poll lately? I agree we're not an evil empire, but do you really want the U.S. to sit on their hands and do NOTHING while civilians are massacred? Why?

[SkvyWvr]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Vell, zat's zeh zame accent zen. :p

Only cooler, with sunglasses :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

More like 1 fake and 1 possible, yet to be confirmed, study.

Sorry, no, the first is confirmed to be valid academical project, even being led by one of America's leading figures in differential and intelligence psychology (his name by far is not unknown internationally ).

It's just that you maybe do not like the outcome.

About the other I just can refer to the German newspaper site that referred to it some days ago. If that really is faked, then obviously many people fell for it.

Refer to Simonton'S work to be safe, then. The absolute values are not the interesting thing (they are scaled too high for a standard IQ scale), but their ratios.

[The Avon Lady]

While we've previously linked to many an article showing one failuer after another in US security and intel services over the past 20 years, here is what's brewing here and now.

Stupid idiots!

[SkvyWvr]

@ Avon.

How about a couple Kinishes

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sorry, no, the first is confirmed to be valid academical project, even being led by one of America's leading figures in differential and intelligence psychology (his name by far is not unknown internationally ).

It's just that you maybe do not like the outcome.

Or you don't like my prior link.