sundevil777 102 #26 October 23, 2004 Whatever the average IQ, your attitude could be seen by some as, elitist.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #27 October 23, 2004 QuoteWhatever the average IQ, your attitude could be seen by some as, elitist. Ignorant is another word that comes to mind. People can be very book smart, but when it comes to common sense they can be as dumb as a stump. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #28 October 23, 2004 Quote>While the bill itself didn't say - "A vote to go to war tomorrow", every > single person who voted knew that that's what it meant. Unfortunately, congressmen must vote for what a bill says and not what they imagine it might mean. Most people who sign things understand this. Congress could have simply voted "no", with an understanding that the bill could/would be resubmitted, or possibly (I'm not sure how this works) delayed the vote until they thought military action was truely necessary. But no, instead the Congress voted to give the President the authority to use force - they knew exactly what they doing; they knew exactly what the outcome of their vote would be. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #29 October 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhatever the average IQ, your attitude could be seen by some as, elitist. Ignorant is another word that comes to mind. People can be very book smart, but when it comes to common sense they can be as dumb as a stump. Actually (not that Kallend needs me to defend him), he makes sense. Half of the population is at average intelligence or below, and we allow those people to vote. Hence, many of the people voting are less than intelligent. In my not so humble opinion, though, a lower iq doesn't necessarily mean you can't choose the best candidate for you.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #30 October 23, 2004 QuoteWhatever the average IQ, your attitude could be seen by some as, elitist. You open the door; expect someone to walk through.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #31 October 23, 2004 QuoteWhatever the average IQ, your attitude could be seen by some as, elitist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ignorant is another word that comes to mind. People can be very book smart, but when it comes to common sense they can be as dumb as a stump. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually (not that Kallend needs me to defend him), he makes sense. Half of the population is at average intelligence or below, and we allow those people to vote. Hence, many of the people voting are less than intelligent. Actually, my statement was not directed at Kallend despite the fact that I quoted a statement that was. I was simply referring to the theme of this thread. It's just plain dumb. When my IQ was tested (which was probably in elementary school) it was 146. I'm assuming my IQ is still above the average, although I may have lost some brain cells from my head injury. All that said, I'm supporting GWB and It pisses me off when people make statements that infer I have less than average intelligence because of it. Kallend, if you thought I was referring to you, I apologize. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #32 October 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhatever the average IQ, your attitude could be seen by some as, elitist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ignorant is another word that comes to mind. People can be very book smart, but when it comes to common sense they can be as dumb as a stump. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually (not that Kallend needs me to defend him), he makes sense. Half of the population is at average intelligence or below, and we allow those people to vote. Hence, many of the people voting are less than intelligent. Actually, my statement was not directed at Kallend despite the fact that I quoted a statement that was. I was simply referring to the theme of this thread. It's just plain dumb. When my IQ was tested (which was probably in elementary school) it was 146. I'm assuming my IQ is still above the average, although I may have lost some brain cells from my head injury. All that said, I'm supporting GWB and It pisses me off when people make statements that infer I have less than average intelligence because of it. Kallend, if you thought I was referring to you, I apologize. Since you're so intelligent, tell, us the difference between infer and imply.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #33 October 24, 2004 QuoteSince you're so intelligent, tell, us the difference between infer and imply. Nice. Once he corrects himself, maybe we can get the Professor here to tell us how to properly punctuate a sentence. I mean... since you're so intelligent and all...Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #34 October 24, 2004 QuoteWhatever the average IQ, your attitude could be seen by some as, elitist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ignorant is another word that comes to mind. People can be very book smart, but when it comes to common sense they can be as dumb as a stump. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually (not that Kallend needs me to defend him), he makes sense. Half of the population is at average intelligence or below, and we allow those people to vote. Hence, many of the people voting are less than intelligent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, my statement was not directed at Kallend despite the fact that I quoted a statement that was. I was simply referring to the theme of this thread. It's just plain dumb. When my IQ was tested (which was probably in elementary school) it was 146. I'm assuming my IQ is still above the average, although I may have lost some brain cells from my head injury. All that said, I'm supporting GWB and It pisses me off when people make statements that infer I have less than average intelligence because of it. Kallend, if you thought I was referring to you, I apologize. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since you're so intelligent, tell, us the difference between infer and imply. From Dictionary.com: in·fer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fûr) v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers v. tr. To conclude from evidence or premises. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy). To hint; imply. im·ply ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pl) tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer. Obsolete. To entangle. As you can see, "infer" was properly used. Now maybe you should work on your punctuation. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #35 October 24, 2004 I think the title and text of this post implies exactly the opposite of what it claims to imply. It reminds me of the detainee in a mental institution screaming that it's everyone else who is insane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #36 October 24, 2004 Quotethe detainee in a mental institution screaming that it's everyone else who is insane. Oops you may have upset the PC crowd, but that is a great comment! Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #37 October 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteSince you're so intelligent, tell, us the difference between infer and imply. Nice. Once he corrects himself, maybe we can get the Professor here to tell us how to properly punctuate a sentence. I mean... since you're so intelligent and all... What did you expect? I haven't posted my IQ in a public forum, and don't claim to have one of 146.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #38 October 24, 2004 >So you agree Kerry should have voted no? No. >But instead he voted yes, wanting his yes vote to mean somethin > other than what the resolution said. Like believing a contract says > something other than what it says. I think he voted yes because he thought the president _should_ have the right to use force if he needs to, if all else fails. The same way a police comissioner might approve the use of deadly force if needed. If a cop shoots an innocent guy in the street because he dislikes him, though, only a fool would blame the police comissioner or the gun instead of the person who used the deadly force. >He should have voted no, just like in '91. Would you have voted no? Why or why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #39 October 24, 2004 Sundevil, Muenkel, enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #40 October 24, 2004 Quote>So you agree Kerry should have voted no? No. >But instead he voted yes, wanting his yes vote to mean somethin > other than what the resolution said. Like believing a contract says > something other than what it says. I think he voted yes because he thought the president _should_ have the right to use force if he needs to, if all else fails. The same way a police comissioner might approve the use of deadly force if needed. If a cop shoots an innocent guy in the street because he dislikes him, though, only a fool would blame the police comissioner or the gun instead of the person who used the deadly force. >He should have voted no, just like in '91. Would you have voted no? Why or why not? Problem is, I don't recall Kerry saying anything when the President decided to go to war. He only decided to take the high moral ground when everything didn't go as well as planned. Matter of fact, I didn't hear too many complaining until then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #41 October 25, 2004 >Problem is, I don't recall Kerry saying anything when the >President decided to go to war. I'm not suprised; he wasn't running for president then. Do you recall what the senators from Iowa said about the vote? Do you even know who the senators from Iowa are? (Not singling you out; most people don't.) A statement from Kerry around the time of the vote: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html An excerpt: "In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs." Sounds pretty similar to what he's been saying lately. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #42 October 25, 2004 Quote>Problem is, I don't recall Kerry saying anything when the >President decided to go to war. I'm not suprised; he wasn't running for president then. Do you recall what the senators from Iowa said about the vote? Do you even know who the senators from Iowa are? (Not singling you out; most people don't.) Assuming you are talking about Harkins not Grassley, how does what he said have any relation to what Kerry said? QuoteA statement from Kerry around the time of the vote: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html An excerpt: "In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs." Sounds pretty similar to what he's been saying lately. Apparently my point went over your head. The point is, that in the days and weeks before the war started, very few Dems including Kerry had anything negative to say about it. They now want to go back and try and find anything they said that could be remotely construed as being against the war. Show me John Kerry speaking out as forcfully as he does now against the war then. His statement that we shouldn't go to war without support from the international community is true. We didn't. Now it not the right international community meaning Germany, France and Russia. Of course we are finding out more and more the reasons they didn't support the war as the U.N. Oil for food scandal unfolds. The worst kind of hypocrite is one who trys to cover his ass when things don't go as well as planned. I think it speaks poorly of Kerrys core. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwmike 0 #43 October 25, 2004 QuoteI think the title and text of this post implies exactly the opposite of what it claims to imply. It reminds me of the detainee in a mental institution screaming that it's everyone else who is insane. Having worked in a number of such institutions, I believe this sometimes to be the true state of affairs. Stripping away the illusions of life can lead to what society calls madness. Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #44 October 25, 2004 >The point is, that in the days and weeks before the war started, very >few Dems including Kerry had anything negative to say about it. kerry's statement to Powell in Feb of 2003: ------------------- I think that we are all gratified that the administration finally came to the United Nations and made its case to the world. And many of us have said that the hard diplomatic work and the work of educating America have been too long in the coming. I think the road would have been much easier for you to this moment, and I think the road would be easier in the days ahead, had the administration listened to you. I know your position has always been to try to maximize that international effort, and I think this is a vindication of your position and of the many of us here in the Congress who long pushed for something less unilateral and more of the hard work of diplomacy. -------------------- >Show me John Kerry speaking out as forcfully as he does now > against the war then. He wasn't more forceful because he believed Bush, as many did. I have a feeling you would vote to support the president of the US if he said that there was a clear and present danger from another country, no matter what his political tilt. And I suspect if a democratic president claimed there was a clear and present danger, and none existed, you would later be angry at him for misleading you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #45 October 25, 2004 Quote>The point is, that in the days and weeks before the war started, very >few Dems including Kerry had anything negative to say about it. kerry's statement to Powell in Feb of 2003: ------------------- QuoteI think that we are all gratified that the administration finally came to the United Nations and made its case to the world. And many of us have said that the hard diplomatic work and the work of educating America have been too long in the coming. I think the road would have been much easier for you to this moment, and I think the road would be easier in the days ahead, had the administration listened to you. I know your position has always been to try to maximize that international effort, and I think this is a vindication of your position and of the many of us here in the Congress who long pushed for something less unilateral and more of the hard work of diplomacy. Only problem is these aren't the words of someone vehemently opposed to the war on moral grounds. These aren't the words of an anti-war activist proclaiming loudly for all to hear that the war is wrong. Quite a change in Kerrys rhetoric between then and now isn't it? -------------------- >Show me John Kerry speaking out as forcfully as he does now > against the war then. QuoteHe wasn't more forceful because he believed Bush, as many did. I have a feeling you would vote to support the president of the US if he said that there was a clear and present danger from another country, no matter what his political tilt. And I suspect if a democratic president claimed there was a clear and present danger, and none existed, you would later be angry at him for misleading you. Very convenient and contrived excuse. Show me evidence that Bush had access to intel that Kerry didn't. I'm not even going down this road with you. It's been beat to death for over a year. To answer your question, yes if I thought any President had intentionally lied, I'd be pissed. I think Bush was wrong, but so were most politicians. I think those like Kerry that are now trying to spin their positions are cheesedicks. Thats all it is you know..... spin! The truth is In the lefts view, Bush can do no right. If WMDs were discovered tomorrow, you guys would accuse of him for lying about SH not having them. Is it any wonder he ignores your rhetoric? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Muenkel 0 #46 October 25, 2004 QuoteWhat did you expect? I haven't posted my IQ in a public forum, and don't claim to have one of 146. I agree with you Kallend that you never to my knowledge posted your IQ. I do want to say that the 146 IQ is correct. The testing was done in elemantary school and I do realize that those types of tests have met a lot of scrutiny. I do not claim to have that IQ now. However, I am confident that it is above average, as I am also confident that yours is too. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #47 October 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhatever the average IQ, your attitude could be seen by some as, elitist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ignorant is another word that comes to mind. People can be very book smart, but when it comes to common sense they can be as dumb as a stump. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually (not that Kallend needs me to defend him), he makes sense. Half of the population is at average intelligence or below, and we allow those people to vote. Hence, many of the people voting are less than intelligent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, my statement was not directed at Kallend despite the fact that I quoted a statement that was. I was simply referring to the theme of this thread. It's just plain dumb. When my IQ was tested (which was probably in elementary school) it was 146. I'm assuming my IQ is still above the average, although I may have lost some brain cells from my head injury. All that said, I'm supporting GWB and It pisses me off when people make statements that infer I have less than average intelligence because of it. Kallend, if you thought I was referring to you, I apologize. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since you're so intelligent, tell, us the difference between infer and imply. From Dictionary.com: in·fer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fûr) v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers v. tr. To conclude from evidence or premises. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy). To hint; imply. im·ply ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pl) tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer. Obsolete. To entangle. As you can see, "infer" was properly used. Now maybe you should work on your punctuation. I don't see anything of the sort. Very good use of the dictionary. Both Val and I made general statements about IQ and the population, and you jumped right in with both feet.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #48 October 25, 2004 QuoteNow point to a post in which anyone except you or Trent gave an indication that they inferred that the 50% with below average IQ are Bush supporters. Well since I haven't made any comments like that, I haven't implied anything about the intelligence of the voting communities on either side. Don't use my name in that argument. Just to be nitpicky then, I think Val said something to the effect that 50% of people are at or below "average" intelligence. Actually, only 50% would be below the MEDIAN intelligence level. Extremely high and extremely low intelligence levels will skew the average. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if way more than 50% of the population is below "average" intelligence. ... that's why so many people support Kerry. Now you can yell at me...Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Muenkel 0 #49 October 25, 2004 I'm holding back because I respect BillVon's authority. If you want to bait me, go right ahead. I'm not responding. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Vallerina 2 #50 October 25, 2004 QuoteActually, only 50% would be below the MEDIAN intelligence level. But IQ tends to follow a bell curve, so median = mean.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Muenkel 0 #46 October 25, 2004 QuoteWhat did you expect? I haven't posted my IQ in a public forum, and don't claim to have one of 146. I agree with you Kallend that you never to my knowledge posted your IQ. I do want to say that the 146 IQ is correct. The testing was done in elemantary school and I do realize that those types of tests have met a lot of scrutiny. I do not claim to have that IQ now. However, I am confident that it is above average, as I am also confident that yours is too. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #47 October 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhatever the average IQ, your attitude could be seen by some as, elitist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ignorant is another word that comes to mind. People can be very book smart, but when it comes to common sense they can be as dumb as a stump. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually (not that Kallend needs me to defend him), he makes sense. Half of the population is at average intelligence or below, and we allow those people to vote. Hence, many of the people voting are less than intelligent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, my statement was not directed at Kallend despite the fact that I quoted a statement that was. I was simply referring to the theme of this thread. It's just plain dumb. When my IQ was tested (which was probably in elementary school) it was 146. I'm assuming my IQ is still above the average, although I may have lost some brain cells from my head injury. All that said, I'm supporting GWB and It pisses me off when people make statements that infer I have less than average intelligence because of it. Kallend, if you thought I was referring to you, I apologize. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since you're so intelligent, tell, us the difference between infer and imply. From Dictionary.com: in·fer ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fûr) v. in·ferred, in·fer·ring, in·fers v. tr. To conclude from evidence or premises. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy). To hint; imply. im·ply ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pl) tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer. Obsolete. To entangle. As you can see, "infer" was properly used. Now maybe you should work on your punctuation. I don't see anything of the sort. Very good use of the dictionary. Both Val and I made general statements about IQ and the population, and you jumped right in with both feet.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #48 October 25, 2004 QuoteNow point to a post in which anyone except you or Trent gave an indication that they inferred that the 50% with below average IQ are Bush supporters. Well since I haven't made any comments like that, I haven't implied anything about the intelligence of the voting communities on either side. Don't use my name in that argument. Just to be nitpicky then, I think Val said something to the effect that 50% of people are at or below "average" intelligence. Actually, only 50% would be below the MEDIAN intelligence level. Extremely high and extremely low intelligence levels will skew the average. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if way more than 50% of the population is below "average" intelligence. ... that's why so many people support Kerry. Now you can yell at me...Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #49 October 25, 2004 I'm holding back because I respect BillVon's authority. If you want to bait me, go right ahead. I'm not responding. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #50 October 25, 2004 QuoteActually, only 50% would be below the MEDIAN intelligence level. But IQ tends to follow a bell curve, so median = mean.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
