AeroTech Information Release 12-6-05

There are 15% fewer bushes now than during the Clinton presidency. Do you think the price of razors went down or people are making a statement?

And just so you know, I've done my best to confirm the numbers. 8-)

OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

David Erbas-White

At least they're varying the theme a bit... From a piece of feces email I got this morning..

So LQQKY! Now we can *really* cash in! Oh, but he wants his cut...

tah

Yea, can you say Jerry??

Yep, the gopher..... "I'm alright, nobody worry 'bout me."

Randy

ROFL!!!

Randy

Get ready to do it again when they run "her majesty the anti-christ" runs in a few months. Doesn't anyone have a wooden stake? Silver bullet? She'll probably get Big Nose to be her running mate since she went back on her promise to leave the country. Dang Focker!

Randy

The President gets slammed from the right, left, and center. It's just part of the job and a consequence of free speech. Actually, your citation put the numbers that I posted on a much stronger footing, since we now know where they came from, and otherwise 76% of all statistics are just made up. Since you suggest that the posted IQ numbers are biased, please post a list of accurate unbiased presidential IQs. (Yes "rec." = "for amusement".)

It was certainly not for the purpose of libel. It was for the purpose of responding to an OT discussion on "smarts". Furthermore, I think Bush's IQ as listed, is adequate for a president in general, even if Bush is a poor president.

And while you're at it, you can post an index or quotient of presidents "Cunning" as well. All for amusement of course.

Alan

The above statistic was obviously just made up. For entertainment of course. Using an odd number is a common trick. Adding a few decimal points helps too. Prime numbers are good too.

Typical liberal. The facts don't support you, so you make up ones that will. Keep repeating the lie and hope people are too stupid to bother to check the facts. And they wonder why they are the minority party.

Please post your factual list of presidential IQs. The factual truth always trumps made up "lies". Alternatively, make up your own best guess list and post it for our amusement.

Alan

Your antics aren't even amusing -- you make some flat out invalid statements, I prove you wrong, and then you insist that I must provide corrected numbers for YOUR mistake. It doesn't work that way, and I don't play that game.

It would be the same as my claiming that drinking orange juice makes one immortal, and you produce information that says it doesn't, so I require you to find out what DOES make one immortal in order to accept your claim.

You were just being nasty, and refuse to accept it -- no problem, I've learned something valuable -- an insight into your character.

David Erbas-White

It most certainly does on rmr.

For your amusement.

During his administration, Jimmy Carter was also criticized for being dimwitted. He talked funny. While I never agreed with his politics, Carter was no idiot.

Thanks, great find.

I think he was criticized more for talking slower with a southern accent. IQ is composite index of several aspects of intelligence. I figure much of Carter's came from a fine analytical mind that served him well at the Naval Academy, but that was not as useful as president. The aspects of Nixon's IQ seemed perfect for politics.

Bush is certainly no idiot, even though nobody is touting him as one of our most intelligent presidents. It does not bother me too much that Bush "talks funny". What bothers me is that he lacks the communication, debating, and personal skills to say, convince more nations to join us as allies in the Iraq war, and in other matters of foreign policy. While I don't agree with his politics, that has little to do with IQ. Indeed, if Bush had a higher IQ he may well have been even worse for the US, by advancing his politics more rapidly.

Alan

Come on people, IQ has so little to do with the ability to be a good(or bad) president that it's ridiculous. I'm mean really, congress critters are the thinkers here. We all know this, so why argue over a number that's achieved, or not achieved, by a president?

btw, I've personally met Bush sr, Bush jr, Ford and Clinton. All of them I've met several times. Pretty bright, and personal(not fake) group I might add.

Although, I do have to admit Ford seamed a bit.....out there :)

Take a wild guess who really impressed me with the brain power???

Clinton!

go figure...

Ted 'never met Reagan :(' Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

Anyone looking for an unbiased political discussion here is barkin up the wrong tree.

I think Alan is overstating Bush's IQ. THat is based on my opinion and nothing else.

Political discussion is by its very nature biased. Presenting 'factual' information that is completely made up in order to support one's position is different -- that's simply advertising that one's position can't stand on its own, and showing the character of the one who presents it.

I have no problem with someone who has a different political position than mine. My last (corporate) boss was an extreme left-wing fellow, and he and I got along great -- we still meet for lunch many years later. Interesting discussions, too .

Everyone's welcome to their opinion, when stated as such. I read your statement as "Bush isn't very bright compared to other folks I know", or as "I'd prefer my president to be smarter than Bush appears to be", or any of several similar statements. However, if you ACTUALLY meant that Bush has an IQ lower than 91, then (in my opinion) YOU are the one with the room-temperature IQ. In other words, made as a 'comparative' statement, or as (stated) satire, I respect it -- but if you believe it's a point of FACT, it immediately (in my mind) detracts from other arguments you may make (whether factual or opinion).

A high IQ doesn't mean doesn't make mistakes, by the way. I just finished reading Stephen Hawkings latest book, and there is a blatant error in it relating to pop culture. I also just received an Astronomy calendar done by one of the top astro-photographers around (and obviously noted astronomer), with another blatant error. Are these errors because they're dumb??? No, it's because they made mistakes.

As a side note (completely parenthetical to the political debate), I'd love there to be a CSQ test instead of an IQ test -- Common Sense Quotient. I think this would be far more indicative of success than IQ

-- and just as you can't "teach" IQ, despite racking my brain for years (in order to teach my kids) I've yet to come up with a way of 'teaching' common sense. In that regard, I'd probably give Truman the highest CSQ rating of the last 60 years, followed by Reagan, and then probably Clinton (though it pains me to say it).

David Erbas-White

Quite right.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate if we discussed presidents ballistic coefficients, or dispersion foot prints...

He was an anomaly in the sense that he was never elected to the presidency by The People.

Based on IQ potential, I think he was an under achiever in office. He never managed to do health care reform, and now look at the mess we are in. OTOH, he is more impressive in post presidential talks at colleges and such.

Alan

If there is one characteristic common to most successful politicians, it's likely that they have ADD. Over the past half century, only Jimmy Carter didn't. Clinton, along with Kennedy, was the poster child for ADD. If you're going to be a politician, trial lawyer, certain medical specialties, actor, sales, etc. it's almost a necessity.

Alas, if you don't learn to deal with it, about 80% of prison populations are filled with mostly undiagnosed ADD sufferers, many there for "self-medicating".