comparing Bush Jr. and Adolph Hitler

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by h.j. anslinger
yes fema one stops.......you people can't even understand me.....

I can't speak for others, but I don't even want to understand you. You have the writing style of a 2nd grader and your rants are annoying. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously here when you come off like a 10 year old?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by h.j. anslinger
shitty attitude? look at yer avatar

And what does that have to do with being civil and posting with respect to other members? Turn images off in your browser settings if you don't like my avatar.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by h.j. anslinger
I am a college graduate

Then put your sheepskin to good use and post like you've received somewhat of an education.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by jonez
Thanks Jimnyc.

I can see I did have a bad attitude. But I don't take kindly to people calling me names.
I Was called a lyer, a looney liberal, biased, childish.
And you've called me a lyer more than once on this thread.
Let me get something straight, I would never try to lie to anyone here. Not on purpose anyway. But I cant prove ALL my opinions. Or any of them to you all in this case. What I said about criminals being in the whitehouse may sound really stupid to you guys. But thats what ive heard I believe it could be true based on questions that were asked to the administration, their reply was not sufficiant. They didnt say there were NOT any felons in are whitehouse, or deny if it was the most we've had in our whitehouse. Thats all I had , sorry.

If you could go back through this thread and see I was insulted many times. Atleast it felt that way. From moi calling me a rambler. To joan asking me if Ive taken my medication yet.
After alot of those types of comments I get do get edgy.

Jones/Jonez: I'm glad you are not banned. I actually didn't think you were rude. If you took my comment on your rambling as rude, I apologize. It wasn't a personal attack on you it was just a comment on how unconnected your facts were in that one thread. I'll admit I tempered the rest of my posts to your tone so for that I apologize. (see how easy it is to get caught up??) Anyway, if you want to post things in the future, please go ahead. I'll try not to take the bait you throw out on your hook- however, I still think your arguments about Bush's ancestors and criminals in the white house are irrelevant. You find them important things, I do not. I found it important that Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." You, perhaps, did not.

 

[jones]

I found it important that Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." You, perhaps, did not.

Hahha. You better believe it! I'm more concerned about how the media jumped all over Clinton in that episode. Right now they are focused on the presidents objectives, and trying to convince everyone that hes being the best leader ever.
Even more concerning to me is our current administration's failure to treat 9/11 commitee with respect and lying to the american people about an iminent threat of WMDs.

 

[jones]

Anslinger, dont freak out yet. maybe I still need to read more but this might help u out.

http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Concentration_Camps/

http://www.c0balt.com/egg/insane.shtml

If you got something good send it over heh.

 

[NightTrain]

Jones :

I banned you last night because you refused to answer in a straightforward manner the questions posed by many people on this board to many statements you claimed were fact.

When pressed to provide backup (which the vast majority of us already knew you couldn't anyway) and you discovered that you couldn't, you got a smartass attitude.

Be aware that in the future if you make a statement and claim it's a fact, the burden of proof is upon you when called on it - you make the statement, you back it up. It's how things are done. If you're off base & you learn through the course of the debate that you were wrong, then be a man about it and admit it right there in the thread. Almost everyone here has done so and being able to admit you were wrong will earn the respect of most, even if they completely disagree with your personal political beliefs.

Speculation & opinion is another matter altogether and should always be prefaced as such. No problem! We all have opinions, hopefully based on factual events, but opinions nevertheless.

But to trot out bizarre statements as irrefutable fact and refuse to provide backup when called on them is unacceptable. The debates turn to utter chaos and get nowhere as you can see by the preceeding 9 pages in this thread.

 

[h.j. anslinger]

i'm sorry jones, but I can't take insults from sheep, you know how I feel....go to ***.org If you want to talk to me......this place is for sheep.....you seem to know this already........no one has even commented on my fake name..........harry J. Anslinger.......you probably know who he is, but these sheep are clueless

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by h.j. anslinger
no one has even commented on my fake name..........harry J. Anslinger.......you probably know who he is, but these sheep are clueless

We probably just chalked it up to you being "high" while posting.

 

[eric]

What is wrong with this fruitcake ?

 

[jones]

Anslinger i cant read your link its bleeped out.

Nighttrain -

But to trot out bizarre statements as irrefutable fact and refuse to provide backup when called on them is unacceptable.

I statements arent bizarre and I DID provide backup the best I could.
Everone here was calling upon me to provide all sorts of proof which I have no means of obtaining.
While alot of the replys to me didnt supply much argument just whining about my sources, it struck me as naive.

I'll make it official. I AM sorry for statements Ive made that were clearly circumstantial, and lacking evidence. Oh and disrespect.
But, feel I've been disrespected also and I WILL NOT forgive those who dont realize their faults.

 

[wonderwench]

HJA,

I thought you had bailed on all of US SHEEPLE!

 

[h.j. anslinger]

behind anslinger dupont hatespeech incorporated welcome back kotter to the program folks pete rose silent eyes are touching the termites you shaking food shortage rambling second grade talker ten year old thirty year old ramblin rose velvet one month old baby croc dangler crocodile savy feeding time chik-fil-a bob dobbs bob dobbs x-day has it it is written in the stones ministry now rattle snake eagle monkey wrench c.i.a. psy-op babble on burn, burn , burn the ring of fire, the ring of fire

 

[wonderwench]

That was funny.

DO IT AGAIN!

 

[MtnBiker]

Oh Christ, don't encourage him.

 

[5.10 leader]

Getting back to the original point comparing GWB to Hitler. All kinds of semantic arguments can be produced but there is one irrefutable fact; if GWB ran a regime in the same way as Hitler, nobody would be free to draw the comparison and sure as hell, nobody would be posting here.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by 5.10 leader
Getting back to the original point comparing GWB to Hitler. All kinds of semantic arguments can be produced but there is one irrefutable fact; if GWB ran a regime in the same way as Hitler, nobody would be free to draw the comparison and sure as hell, nobody would be posting here.

Bush is nothing like Hitler. Hitler was much smarter. While there is no concrete data, it is estimated that Bush's IQ is 91 and Hitler's was 141.

Bush

Hitler's IQ estimate is an average based on a large sample of IQ tests that were administered to Nazi top brass in Nuremburg.

In my opinion, Hitler was an intelligent and demented monster who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity.

In my opinion, Bush is just a well connected, affable idiot.

""A president must president his country. I, that is, we, as a country, president, and commit ourself to presidenting in and out of this great country in the world. I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but of predecessors as well" - George W. Bush


-Bam

 

[lilcountriegal]

Really bam. With just a little research, you would have found this to be exactly what it is: garbage.

================================

Claim: According to a study by the Lovenstein Institute, President Bush has the lowest IQ of all presidents of past 50 years.
Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]

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 it's 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)

or, in IQ order:

182 .. William J. Clinton (D)
175 .. James E. Carter (D)
174 .. John F. Kennedy (D)
155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 .. Harry Truman (D)
126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 .. Gerald Ford (R)
105 .. Ronald Reagan (R)
098 .. George HW Bush (R)
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 GW 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.


Origins: No,
this isn't a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn't a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist, because this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously.

The piece is simply a political jibe, made obvious by its ranking all the Democratic presidents of the last several decades as having high (even exceptionally high) IQs — note that Bill Clinton's IQ is listed as being exactly twice George W. Bush's — while ranking all the Republican presidents from the same time frame as average to moderate in intelligence, with the current president and his father assigned below-average figures placing them at the very bottom of the list. (President Nixon is the sole exception, presumably because his reputation is still so tarnished that not even a high IQ measurement can yet redeem him in the court of public opinion.)

[Some noticeable errors: Although the study includes Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died in office in 1945, the report is described as covering presidents in office "over the past 50 years." Also not true is the claim that "all the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt" — some of them authored no books until after becoming president, and George W. Bush did have a book to his credit before being elected president, 1999's A Charge to Keep. Plus, if there's a "Swanson/Crain" system for ranking intelligence, nobody else seems to have heard of it.]

In any case, IQ is a dodgy enough concept even when measured by tests designed for the purpose — trying to guess not just relative rankings but specific IQ scores based solely on writings and speeches is bound to be error-prone. Based on President George H. Bush's extemporaneous speech-making, for example, he couldn't "speak with clarity" to save his life, but he was clearly far more intelligent than the insultingly low IQ assigned to him above. And a recent article reports President Kennedy's IQ as 119, far below the genius-level 174 ascribed to him here.

Update: As obvious as this joke was, at least two publications were taken in by it: The [London] Guardian and the New Zealand Southland Times. Both ran the "Presidential I.Q." tale as a factual item (on 19 July and 7 August 2001 respectively). The Associated Press publicized The Guardian's error on 12 August, moving The Guardian to post a retraction on 14 August, and U.S. News & World Report clearly reported the I.Q. item as a hoax on 20 August, 2001.

 

[jimnyc]

Way to go, Bam!

Go to snopes.com next time, you can probably find lots of good stories to post for us!

 

[jimnyc]

182 .. William J. Clinton (D)

Sure, and my real name is Bob Hope!

Probably more like 82