• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Adviser: Bachmann likely to enter WH race

Barbbtx said:
The left has called Palin an idiot so many times, stupid people actually bought into the lie.
Click to expand...

If you can find a speech or debate of the floor where she says something intelligent... pls post it.
 
Barbbtx said:
Of course he is talking about voting them out.
We're not going to get someone we agree with 100%. He is very Conservative on all issues. I only consider myself very conservative on some issues.
So far, he's my choice and I can't think of anyone who would change my mind. Well, except for maybe Chris Christie.
Click to expand...

I would maybe vote for someone who's social views I disagree with a bit if I completely agree fiscally, but nothing would make me vote for a complete social conservative. I think I would feel sick coming out of the voting booth if I did that. It goes against all my principles.

I could deal with fiscal liberals purely because having them means we're eventually going to default on our debt and become fiscally conservative whether we like it or not. This may actually be quicker, too.
 
Redress said:
Adviser: Bachmann likely to enter WH race



Now, I don't trust anonymous sources, so not going to say anything for sure yet, but lord I do hope she runs. We have not had a good group of humor candidates for either party since 2000, when the republicans had Keyes and Bauer both running.
Click to expand...

When I saw this Pat Paulsen came to mind immediately...LOL

Patrick Layton "Pat" Paulsen (July 6, 1927 – April 24, 1997) was an American comedian and satirist notable for his roles on several of the Smothers Brothers TV shows, and for his campaigns for President of the United States in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1992, and 1996, which had primarily comedic rather than political objectives, although his campaigns generated some protest votes for him.


Pat Paulsen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
iamitter said:
Palin may not be a complete idiot, but her IQ is average at best. Even our dumbest presidents to date have had IQs in the triple digits and I don't want to break that trend.
Click to expand...

Speaking Of IQ's, remember this? I think this guy may be a little low in that area. Not to smart to rave about someone's IQ when you have no idea what it is. :)


Obama Is Our Smartest President?
Posted on November 11, 2008 by FreedomsWings| 1 Comment
Historian Michael Beschloss was interviewed Monday on Don Imus’ radio show and he made the claim that President-elect Obama’s IQ is off the charts and that he is the smartest president we have ever had. Here is the meat of the conversation:
Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …
Imus: Well. What is his IQ?
Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable
Imus: What is his IQ?
Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?
Imus: What is his IQ?
Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably – he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.
Click to expand...
Obama Is Our Smartest President? | Freedom's Wings
 
If I really had my choice, I would pick somebody like bloomberg (if he wasn't a welfare whore) or david brooks (if he had a bit more of a forceful personality) and if they both weren't as pro-defense spending as they are. Also, they would need to completely reform the entitlement state. Yeah, but besides that, I'd love either of them (as much as I can any politician - hard to find one I completely agree with).

I like me them nyc folks.
 
Barbbtx said:
Speaking Of IQ's, remember this? I think this guy may be a little low in that area. Not to smart to rave about someone's IQ when you have no idea what it is. :)


Obama Is Our Smartest President? | Freedom's Wings
Click to expand...

We have to estimate many presidents' IQs. Even if Obama was in the lowest 25% of LSAT scorers who got into harvard (doubtful considering he graduated magna cum laude), he'd still have an IQ > 135.
 
Barbbtx said:
Speaking Of IQ's, remember this? I think this guy may be a little low in that area. Not to smart to rave about someone's IQ when you have no idea what it is. :)
Click to expand...

Ah, yes... the ol' change-the-subject trick. The Conservative two-step.

"Speaking of IQ's..." Gimme a break. :roll::roll:


We were speaking of Bachmann's IQ -- that's the TOPIC -- do you have something to add?
 
Obama's clearly very intelligent, but smartest overall? Awful claim.
Smartest presidents within the last 50 years were Nixon and (yeah I was a bit surprised too) Carter. Some place Clinton up there, but I wouldn't put him above 140.
 
iamitter said:
We have to estimate many presidents' IQs. Even if Obama was in the lowest 25% of LSAT scorers who got into harvard (doubtful considering he graduated magna cum laude), he'd still have an IQ > 135.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned about Obama's IQ. He's highly intelligent in my opinion. It was the conversation about it that cracked me up. I heard the audio, but it seems to be scrubbed from the internet. Guess you had to be there. :)
 
Barbbtx said:
I'm not concerned about Obama's IQ. He's highly intelligent in my opinion. It was the conversation about it that cracked me up. I heard the audio, but it seems to be scrubbed from the internet. Guess you had to be there. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the historian was clearly pulling things from his ass.
 
hazlnut said:
Ah, yes... the ol' change-the-subject trick. The Conservative two-step.

"Speaking of IQ's..." Gimme a break. :roll::roll:


We were speaking of Bachmann's IQ -- that's the TOPIC -- do you have something to add?[/QUOTE]

Yea, I'll remember this when when you stray off topic.
Click to expand...
 
iamitter said:
Obama's clearly very intelligent, but smartest overall? Awful claim.
Smartest presidents within the last 50 years were Nixon and (yeah I was a bit surprised too) Carter. Some place Clinton up there, but I wouldn't put him above 140.
Click to expand...

140 is not that great, I would think Clinton may be higher than that. Besides as you know the smartest person in the room isn't always the most effective.
 
washunut said:
140 is not that great, I would think Clinton may be higher than that. Besides as you know the smartest person in the room isn't always the most effective.
Click to expand...

This study puts Bill at 149. I honestly think that's overestimated, but maybe I'm wrong. I think 140 qualifies you for MENSA, thought it may be a few points lower.

After 145, you're 3 standard deviations away and it becomes a lot murkier - anyone above that qualifies as a "genius".

Also, there's so many different tests that use different metrics. I remember I got somewhere around 160 in my teens on one test and I think at 172 or 173 a few years ago.
At a certain point, a few points doesn't matter anymore. Difference in productivity between a person with 150 and 160 IQ is minimal, but between a person at 120 and 130 is very noticeable.
 
How in the flying **** do you "estimate" an IQ?
 
Deuce said:
How in the flying **** do you "estimate" an IQ?
Click to expand...

Yeah I really have no idea...maybe have to go back and read the cox study to find out their methodology, but they have been estimating IQs for historical figures from hundreds of years ago so they must have formulated some type of methodology for figuring out someone's IQ outside of a simple IQ test.
 
Deuce said:
How in the flying **** do you "estimate" an IQ?
Click to expand...

Tests like the SAT, LSAT, etc. are IQ tests in disguise. Colleges and grad schools like to know how intelligent their students will be, but people would flip **** if you made everyone take an IQ test.

As for me personally, I have to interview a crapton of people. The standard logic questions "4 people crossing a bridge", etc. After a while it becomes natural and you can just sort of tell. Granted, I can't really tell with anyone below 120ish because those people never pass the case part of the interview and don't get a verbal one. It's different when you verbally quiz someone with questions designed not to differentiate those with 100 and 130 IQs, but those with 130 and 150+.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Yeah I really have no idea...maybe have to go back and read the cox study to find out their methodology, but they have been estimating IQs for historical figures from hundreds of years ago so they must have formulated some type of methodology for figuring out someone's IQ outside of a simple IQ test.
Click to expand...

Seems like even with lots of video your margin of error would be enormous, but centuries ago? Bah, wild-ass guessing I say. ;)

I'll take the climate skeptic route and just assume a study I have absolutely no knowledge of is definitely wrong because it just seems thats how it should be, based on my gut and 5 seconds of thought.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
Yeah I really have no idea...maybe have to go back and read the cox study to find out their methodology, but they have been estimating IQs for historical figures from hundreds of years ago so they must have formulated some type of methodology for figuring out someone's IQ outside of a simple IQ test.
Click to expand...

Ohh, he meant the historical study. As to that I have no idea, but I think you're right. They examine written works and stuff like that - that's as much as I know about it.
 
Deuce said:
Seems like even with lots of video your margin of error would be enormous, but centuries ago? Bah, wild-ass guessing I say. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, the methods he used had remarkably close results to those who had their actual IQ tested.

However, you're probably right about it to some extent. I mean, there's only so much information to judge them on.
 
iamitter said:
Well, the methods he used had remarkably close results to those who had their actual IQ tested.

However, you're probably right about it to some extent. I mean, there's only so much information to judge them on.
Click to expand...

Also see edit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom