New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iq. - Page 5

post #161 of 168
12/3/10 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Wrong again as his link included all 3 where yours was just about Bush.



None. I've said I don't think any of us knows the truth so no facts needed there unless someone has them. Do you know what their real IQs are? Are they even a public matter?



Not so. All I've said is that the conservative element here made this original question all about Bush ignoring the other two. You stated that someone made this political. I've just said they made it all about Bush. Now I've showed you how.

Since you have clearly stated that you are not and will not be bringing any factual information into this discussion I am not responding to your assertions anymore. When you are ready to deal in reality instead of opinion and speculation, let us all know. Their actual IQ is not the issue, the borderline retarded assertion made is at issue. I am arguing that this assertion is lazy and wrong. You are arguing for it but claiming that there are no facts required. If you are not willing to argue facts I am not willing to continue this particular line of discussion. I may still post in the thread in the future, hope that is ok with you?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #162 of 168
12/3/10 at 6:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Since you have clearly stated that you are not and will not be bringing any factual information into this discussion I am not responding to your assertions anymore. When you are ready to deal in reality instead of opinion and speculation, let us all know. Their actual IQ is not the issue, the borderline retarded assertion made is at issue. I am arguing that this assertion is lazy and wrong. You are arguing for it but claiming that there are no facts required. If you are not willing to argue facts I am not willing to continue this particular line of discussion. I may still post in the thread in the future, hope that is ok with you?

I think by now it should be pretty obvious to everyone that there is no hard evidence that Bush or Palin are borderline retards. What's important here though is how the public and allies and adversaries view these people. Bush did appear especially inept, as Palin has done, to a degree where people rightly go "WTF, this guys retarded". Everyone, as Trumpt has eloquently already pointed out has "brain farts" but what we've seen from Bush and Palin can't be explained away so easily because it happens so frequently, in fact with Palin it's almost like her own particular way of communicating. That's especially concerning, because in just a few years, if she becomes president she'll have even harder questions to answer, the pressure of much more information she'll need and the responsibility of getting a message across well.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #163 of 168
12/3/10 at 6:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I think by now it should be pretty obvious to everyone that there is no hard evidence that Bush or Palin are borderline retards. What's important here though is how the public and allies and adversaries view these people. Bush did appear especially inept, as Palin has done, to a degree where people rightly go "WTF, this guys retarded". Everyone, as Trumpt has eloquently already pointed out has "brain farts" but what we've seen from Bush and Palin can't be explained away so easily because it happens so frequently, in fact with Palin it's almost like her own particular way of communicating. That's especially concerning, because in just a few years, if she becomes president she'll have even harder questions to answer, the pressure of much more information she'll need and the responsibility of getting a message across well.

Fully defensible position. Maybe not agreed by all but a mostly reasonable starting point. Unfortunately I am tired of the whole thread or I would have a lot more to say... \
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #164 of 168
12/3/10 at 7:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Since you have clearly stated that you are not and will not be bringing any factual information into this discussion I am not responding to your assertions anymore. When you are ready to deal in reality instead of opinion and speculation, let us all know. Their actual IQ is not the issue, the borderline retarded assertion made is at issue. I am arguing that this assertion is lazy and wrong. You are arguing for it but claiming that there are no facts required. If you are not willing to argue facts I am not willing to continue this particular line of discussion. I may still post in the thread in the future, hope that is ok with you?

This :

Quote:
You are arguing for it but claiming that there are no facts required. If you are not willing to argue facts I am not willing to continue this particular line of discussion. I may still post in the thread in the future, hope that is ok with you?

Is a falsehood as I've said no such thing. You want to put words into my mouth to fit your arguments. It won't work. I've said I don't know what their IQ.s are. I've also said I was defending a principle that any assertion here can't simply be dismissed because of personal opinion. There have to be facts to dismiss. I also said that the conservative element here seems determined to make this all about Bush.

Also you've said something similar before about this being it for you but because I didn't quietly lie down and die you continued to argue your already lost point hoping I'd tire and give up.

One last time. I'm not arguing for the idea that the listed IQ.s are real. I'm arguing that any point shouldn't be dismissed because of personal opinion. Also I'm arguing that certain parties here seem to make this all about Bush. Which they have.

As I said in the PMs you sent me you can have the last word but not if you want to say you've won and reinterpret what I've said. If you do that I will continue to reply to such falsehoods.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #165 of 168
12/3/10 at 8:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I think by now it should be pretty obvious to everyone that there is no hard evidence that Bush or Palin are borderline retards. What's important here though is how the public and allies and adversaries view these people. Bush did appear especially inept, as Palin has done, to a degree where people rightly go "WTF, this guys retarded". Everyone, as Trumpt has eloquently already pointed out has "brain farts" but what we've seen from Bush and Palin can't be explained away so easily because it happens so frequently, in fact with Palin it's almost like her own particular way of communicating. That's especially concerning, because in just a few years, if she becomes president she'll have even harder questions to answer, the pressure of much more information she'll need and the responsibility of getting a message across well.

Actually it can be explained away quite easily. They communicate often and when communicating they don't use teleprompters to read prepared statements.

Everyone goofs more when their volume of speaking is quite high. Most of Obama's gaffes came from speaking on the trail where even with a prepared speech, fatigue set in. As president Obama has held very, very few press conferences. He has instead demanded network time where he gives a speech and leaves it at that. I think Palin, in explaining her "brain fart" noted that she had given 12 interviews that day, all in a row, on the Korea situation. She goofed on one of them for about one minute. If you take the total volume of interview time, the amount of error is relatively small.

Hands are you familiar with how many of these "pressers" aka press events go? They aren't any different from politics or entertainment. Often a couple hotels are rented out. All the media are together and they dress the room aka put down a couple nice chairs, a nice backdrop, lots of lights, etc. Then you go right from one to another and often end up answering the same questions over and over. You give all the interviews in a row one on top of the other. I used to watch them at political conventions. It was almost like an assembly line.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #166 of 168
12/3/10 at 8:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually it can be explained away quite easily. They communicate often and when communicating they don't use teleprompters to read prepared statements.

Everyone goofs more when their volume of speaking is quite high. Most of Obama's gaffes came from speaking on the trail where even with a prepared speech, fatigue set in. As president Obama has held very, very few press conferences. He has instead demanded network time where he gives a speech and leaves it at that. I think Palin, in explaining her "brain fart" noted that she had given 12 interviews that day, all in a row, on the Korea situation. She goofed on one of them for about one minute. If you take the total volume of interview time, the amount of error is relatively small.

Hands are you familiar with how many of these "pressers" aka press events go? They aren't any different from politics or entertainment. Often a couple hotels are rented out. All the media are together and they dress the room aka put down a couple nice chairs, a nice backdrop, lots of lights, etc. Then you go right from one to another and often end up answering the same questions over and over. You give all the interviews in a row one on top of the other. I used to watch them at political conventions. It was almost like an assembly line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbQwAFobQxQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp9FdTnCW1M

Uh huh.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #167 of 168
12/6/10 at 6:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually it can be explained away quite easily. They communicate often and when communicating they don't use teleprompters to read prepared statements.

Everyone goofs more when their volume of speaking is quite high. Most of Obama's gaffes came from speaking on the trail where even with a prepared speech, fatigue set in. As president Obama has held very, very few press conferences. He has instead demanded network time where he gives a speech and leaves it at that. I think Palin, in explaining her "brain fart" noted that she had given 12 interviews that day, all in a row, on the Korea situation. She goofed on one of them for about one minute. If you take the total volume of interview time, the amount of error is relatively small.

Hands are you familiar with how many of these "pressers" aka press events go? They aren't any different from politics or entertainment. Often a couple hotels are rented out. All the media are together and they dress the room aka put down a couple nice chairs, a nice backdrop, lots of lights, etc. Then you go right from one to another and often end up answering the same questions over and over. You give all the interviews in a row one on top of the other. I used to watch them at political conventions. It was almost like an assembly line.

Where's your information coming from about how many press conferences Obama has held, Sarah's Tweets? According to msnbc he's so far done 4 times as many as Reagan and only slightly less than GW Bush-

"Regarding his time in office, President Obama, through Sept. 10, 2010, has held 37 press conferences (16 solo and 21 joint), according to data compiled by Dr. Martha Joynt Kumar, a political science professor at Towson University. Obama has held 67 short question-and-answer sessions, 216 interviews and 820 addresses and remarks.

He has averaged about two press conferences per month. Where does that rank when it comes to "any recent president?"

It's slightly less than former President George W. Bush, who average 2.2 per month over eight years; it's the same as former President Clinton, who also averaged 2.0 per month; and four times as many as former President Reagan, who held just an average of 0.5 per month.


In fact, Obama in less than two years, has given just 10 fewer total press conferences than Reagan did in eight years (36 vs. 46).
President George H.W. Bush gave an average of 3.0 per month; Carter just 1.2 a month; Ford 1.3; Nixon 0.6; Johnson 2.2; Kennedy 1.9; Eisenhower 2.0; Truman 3.4; Hoover 5.6; Coolidge 7.8; Wilson 1.7."
~ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...cent-president

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #168 of 168
12/7/10 at 9:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Where's your information coming from about how many press conferences Obama has held, Sarah's Tweets? According to msnbc he's so far done 4 times as many as Reagan and only slightly less than GW Bush-

"Regarding his time in office, President Obama, through Sept. 10, 2010, has held 37 press conferences (16 solo and 21 joint), according to data compiled by Dr. Martha Joynt Kumar, a political science professor at Towson University. Obama has held 67 short question-and-answer sessions, 216 interviews and 820 addresses and remarks.

He has averaged about two press conferences per month. Where does that rank when it comes to "any recent president?"

It's slightly less than former President George W. Bush, who average 2.2 per month over eight years; it's the same as former President Clinton, who also averaged 2.0 per month; and four times as many as former President Reagan, who held just an average of 0.5 per month.


In fact, Obama in less than two years, has given just 10 fewer total press conferences than Reagan did in eight years (36 vs. 46).
President George H.W. Bush gave an average of 3.0 per month; Carter just 1.2 a month; Ford 1.3; Nixon 0.6; Johnson 2.2; Kennedy 1.9; Eisenhower 2.0; Truman 3.4; Hoover 5.6; Coolidge 7.8; Wilson 1.7."
~ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...cent-president

I'll dig some more on it but so far I've found this. First, what people are talking about are solo press conferences where he takes questions from the press corps. Why stop at Sept. 10th, 2010? I suspect it is because President Bush was rather busy with the press after say SEPT 11th, and this allowed the author to massage the numbers in terms of comparisons.

Also President Obama's press conferences were rather front loaded, most taking place in his honeymoon phase.

The reality remains that he hasn't given a press conference in almost a year.

The reality also remains that the differences in gaffes aren't based off anything objective but your own blinder based criteria whereby you excuse Obama's gaffes. I've already linked to twelve of them and several of them were clearly in the same vain of claimed ignorance with regard to Palin. There were gaffes regarding Geography (57 states) cosmopolitan knowledge (speaking Austrian) mispronouncing words (corpsman), etc. They aren't hard at all to find.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider