[Scott_H]

Remember that "study" that was said to have estimated the IQs of all the Presidents using their writings and speeches and what not. The one where George W Bush came out as the "dumbest" right below his father? The one where Clinton and Carter were at the top? Remember that?

It's a hoax. More lies from the left. I'll go find that old thread an post the names of those who reveled in it the "results".

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

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

...

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.

Dumya or nothalf way down the page

It's an unfortunate reality that lots of folks think President Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the room. So it didn't seem that surprising when the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pa., rated Bush's IQ as 91, the lowest of recent presidents. The July report followed Bush to Europe, where he was belittled by local reporters. And it has been used against him back home. Well, brainiacs, there is no Lovenstein Institute. The report was an Internet hoax. "This does not exist," says Stan Zygmunt, a University of Scranton spokesman who helped us track down the trick.

[Millennium]

You know what's really depressing, though? Consider that an IQ of 100 is supposed to be the average. Now, there's no denying that Dubya has a tendency to be about as dumb as a sack of hammers. But for these guys to find his IQ to be only slightly below average... what does this say about people in general?

[ort888]

I don't need some number to tell me that man is not paying with a full deck of cards. He can barely talk or form sentences.

He is getting better at reading off a card, but he is still not good at it. Watch what happens when someone asks him a question there is no pre-set answer to. He stumbles about like a fish out of water...

"uh, duh... uh... that's... uh... bad, yes I'm pretty sure that thing you just said, is either bad or good... and that's my final answer."

Wether you agree with his politics or not, you have to admit, Clinton could give a speach with ease. He could talk his way out of almost any question and sound intelligent. Clinton was so comfortable in front of a camera or a crowd, he makes Bush look like a high school freshman in public speaking class.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: ort888 ]

[Scrod]

What, are you saying he's smarter than he appears? Sorry, but I don't need a study to tell me that Bush is a moron. I can see that for myself every time he opens his mouth.

[gwrjr33]

The thing that gets me is how many times I hear the same jokes about his intelligence over and over and over again. It's cute when a three-year-old tells you the same joke again and again but when it's from someone who imagines himself to be in a position to judge Bush's intellectual capacity... well, how much can this stuff really matter?

[Scott_H]

Is it just me or are many of the people brainwashed by the liberal media?

"Bush is a moron because the talking picture box told me so".

[daimoni]

Scott_H: I know there's a cool person in there somewhere, but every week or so you go off the deep end. What are you, ca$hie's older brother or something? Grow up, and start acting like a proper moderator -- and not a flame baiting idiot.

[Scrod]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>Is it just me or are many of the people brainwashed by the liberal media?

"Bush is a moron because the talking picture box told me so".

</STRONG>

Brainwashed by the liberal media, right. It's all one big conspiracy. You just keep right on thinking that.

[itomato]

So, that he has a low IQ is not a hoax, just the institution that supposedly proves it? The truth is the truth, whether it comes from Aesop, Mother Goose, or the Lovenstein Institute.

Even if you love the man, there is no way to deny that his reputation of being "dumb as a sack of hammers" is well deserved.

However, to think that the President of this country should be a shining example of high-intellect and upstanding values is very, very stupid. Those people should take a good look at who the President really is, and the role that he really plays. There is never an honorable, "True American", patriotic, do the right thing for God and country individual standing up there. That's all hogwash. Propaganda. The President is a tool. A way for parties and individuals to leverage influence with the movers and shakers. That's all. You can't have an intelligent man in that position.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally posted by ort888:
<STRONG>I don't need some number to tell me that man is not paying with a full deck of cards. He can barely talk or form sentences.

He is getting better at reading off a card, but he is still not good at it. Watch what happens when someone asks him a question there is no pre-set answer to. He stumbles about like a fish out of water...

"uh, duh... uh... that's... uh... bad, yes I'm pretty sure that thing you just said, is either bad or good... and that's my final answer."

Wether you agree with his politics or not, you have to admit, Clinton could give a speach with ease. He could talk his way out of almost any question and sound intelligent. Clinton was so comfortable in front of a camera or a crowd, he makes Bush look like a high school freshman in public speaking class.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: ort888 ]</STRONG>

indeed.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>Scott_H: I know there's a cool person in there somewhere, but every week or so you go off the deep end. What are you, ca$hie's older brother or something? Grow up, and start acting like a proper moderator -- and not a flame baiting idiot.

</STRONG>

So, ahhhhhhh? Any time we slam Bush around here it's okay but when I uncover yet another lie of the left it's "flame bait" and I need to start "acting like a proper moderator".

Hog wash. I think instead you don't like what I have to say so you attack me as a flamebaiter.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

So, ahhhhhhh? Any time we slam Bush around here it's okay but when I uncover yet another lie of the left it's "flame bait" and I need to start "acting like a proper moderator".

Hog wash. I think instead you don't like what I have to say so you attack me as a flamebaiter.</STRONG>

People. I rest my case.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by itomato:
<STRONG>So, that he has a low IQ is not a hoax, just the institution that supposedly proves it? The truth is the truth, whether it comes from Aesop, Mother Goose, or the Lovenstein Institute.
</STRONG>

The fact that you think "truth" can come from something that does not exist , Lovenstein Institute, says it all.

<STRONG>

Even if you love the man, there is no way to deny that his reputation of being "dumb as a sack of hammers" is well deserved.</STRONG>

Is that the "truth" or the "truth" that the talking picture box told you to think? "The NYT told me Bush is dumb and that's good enough for me."

[shiny]

Rush Limbaugh and the entire Fox News Network told me that Bush is the greatest President since the infalliable, impeckable, that great patriot Ronald Reagan, so that is good enough for me.

[ort888]

Tonight, when I go to my International Brotherhood of Pinko Lefties board meeting, I'll talk to the other members about all these false e-mails we are sending out.

I voted against operation send out false e-mail but all the rest of the board thought it was a great idea. What can I do, I'm just one pinko in a huge machine.

Al Gore agreed with me by the way, at the meeting he thought we should just stick to using our late night talk show host operatives to keep Bush in a negative light. He thought the e-mail was a bad idea as well.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: ort888 ]

[mr. natural]

Ah, yes, the vast "liberal media" conspiracy, which in this instance is the World Wide Web, started no less by Al Gore.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by ort888:
<STRONG>Tonight, when I go to my "International Brotherhood of Pinko Lefties" board meeting, I'll talk to the other members about all these false e-mails we are sending out.
</STRONG>

Heh Heh... Actually, I thought a rival organization, the "Pinko International Brotherhood of the Left" took credit for this.


--
BRIAN: Brothers! Brothers! We should be struggling together!

FRANCIS: We are! Ohh.

BRIAN: We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!

EVERYONE: The Judean People's Front?!

BRIAN: No, no! The Romans!

EVERYONE: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes.
--

[gyc]

If people judged me and other fellow engineers/geeks' intelligence based on our public speaking skills, we'd all be judged to be dumber than dirt. The only proof you need of Bush's intellect was how he was able to defeat an incumbent V.P. (or even statistically tie him), the "intellect" Al Gore, given the great economy we had and the general satisfaction of people in the U.S.

[grok420]

Originally posted by gyc:
<STRONG>If people judged me and other fellow engineers/geeks' intelligence based on our public speaking skills, we'd all be judged to be dumber than dirt. The only proof you need of Bush's intellect was how he was able to defeat an incumbent V.P. (or even statistically tie him), the "intellect" Al Gore, given the great economy we had and the general satisfaction of people in the U.S.</STRONG>

Is this proof of Shrub's intellect or the general populace's lack of it?

[aleph_null]

Actually, the general populace didn't vote for mr. bush by a fair margin.

bush's votes &lt;&lt; (nader's votes + gore's votes + people prevented from voting/people whose votes were thrown out by right-wing morons*)

Even after all those votes went to nader and gore, bush still couldn't win the popular, national vote. So it was actually somewhat heartening.

But even discounting all of that, mr. bush didn't win the election. That was his marketing/PR team's work. As is generally the case with politics and the corporate world*: it's all about marketing and spin.

* pardon my redundancy

[Joshua]

lost cause, Scott... lost cause.

[itomato]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

Is that the "truth" or the "truth" that the talking picture box told you to think? "The NYT told me Bush is dumb and that's good enough for me."</STRONG>

Oh, brother... Don't even make that assumption.. I have about as much faith in Television (hiss! spit!) and printed media, like the NYT, or the equally famous St. Petersburg Times, as I do in religion.. Anything standardized down to address 10M, or even 10B people is definately not for me.

There is no "Liberal Media" unless you take true peoples' media into account. Anything on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, CSPAN, whatever, all carry and display the "official" White House presentation. All the addresses, all the press functions, any presentations of any government officials are given in the official White House light. He has his speech writers, his teleprompter, and the little ear bud telling him what to say if he stammers. Not just Bush, but anybody. He still looks like an idiot.

Like my Mammy used to say, "If it looks like a skunk, and it smells like a skunk, then boy, it's a skunk".

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: itomato ]

[Korv]

Originally posted by itomato:
<STRONG>
However, to think that the President of this country should be a shining example of high-intellect and upstanding values is very, very stupid. Those people should take a good look at who the President really is, and the role that he really plays. There is never an honorable, "True American", patriotic, do the right thing for God and country individual standing up there. That's all hogwash. Propaganda. The President is a tool. A way for parties and individuals to leverage influence with the movers and shakers. That's all. You can't have an intelligent man in that position.</STRONG>

I don't think that was always true. Reagan was the first post-modern president, IMO.

[TNproud2b]

only 7 more years of George Dubya.

This right-wing militant radical is loving every second of your misery...you buncha whining losers.


*proper flamebait ^*


Scott_H, at least half the people in America agree with you. The other half will just have to wait around and maybe learn to punch chads effectively.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>Is it just me or are many of the people brainwashed by the liberal media?

"Bush is a moron because the talking picture box told me so".

</STRONG>

It's just you.

It was partly the so-called "liberal media" that got Bush elected - Bush generally had better personal relations with the press than Gore did, which counts for a lot.

Believe it or not, The New York Times doesn't run things. Most people have never even read an issue of The New York Times. If the media in general were really that "liberal", we wouldn't have had a Republican in office for 24 of the last 36 years (counting Dubbya's first term). People buy the paper and watch the station that most reflects their own values, and the media is happy to sell them what they're looking for, liberal or conservative.

People take media that's agreeable to them for granted, and think that everything else is part of a conspiracy. It's just a matter of perspective. It's like the Woody Allen movie scene, where the marriage counselor asks him how often he and his wife have sex. He says "Never - twice a week", and, in a separate session, his wife says "Constantly - twice a week." Put a conservative and a liberal in their place, ask them about whether the press is being fair to their candidate, and you'd get the same result.

People on both the left and right hear what they want to hear, believe what they want to believe. It's human nature. The IQ story is a perfect example. Last year, it was the right that wouldn't stop gloating about some of Gore's alleged claims even after it was demonstrated that he never made them. "I invented the internet" - are you going to tell us that you didn't buy into that story? If the media is so "liberal", how did that story become so widely accepted as fact? What does it say about Bush that he repeated it in the debates? My point is not to defend Gore, who, like Bush, has told his share of whoppers. My point is that it's naive to think that the left tells more "lies" than the right, or vice versa, or that people on one side are any more gullible or partisan than people on the other.

People who call Bush a "moron" are obviously exaggerating, because they are politically pre-disposed to dislike him. They're going to focus on and exaggerate his flaws whether the "liberal media" suggests it or not. Would you have us believe that you haven't made similar judgments about Al Gore based on his TV appearances, or based on reports that proved to be false?

Personally, I think Bush's IQ is probably above-average if not as high as Clinton or Gore's. He's admitted himself that he's not much of an intellect, and I think that's reflected somewhat in his difficulty with the language. However, I don't think that necessarily disqualifies him - intelligence and judgment have many facets.

[TNproud2b]

Is there any truth to the rumor that 89% of television journalists who were polled said they voted for Clinton (his second term)?


maybe I'm biased, but I sorta believe it.


Ever seen an anchorwoman do an 'eye roll' or recite the news story with a disagreeing attitude?

Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Words make up very little of true 'communication'.

Do you believe that most people think George Dubya is dumb? You'd be wrong. There are at least as many who believe he is intelligent.

[CaseCom]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>Is it just me or are many of the people brainwashed by the liberal media?</STRONG>

I'm brainwashed by the liberal media ... you're brainwashed by OpinionJournal.com. It all evens out in the end.

[Earth Mk. II]

ok.. it's a hoax, whoop-de-freggin-do. I didn't even know it existed until now.

Look, the thing reads like a joke anyway. Bush just happens to be an easy target, it has nothing to do with the leftist media, or whatever... so long as Bush gives (through his fault or not) people stuff to make fun of, they will.

*sigh* My now typical reaction to these types threads:

Why are you (3rd person, plural) so eager to take sides? It's U.S. vs. them... we've got to stop the invaders from within, right?

It's this type of attitude that really makes me sick and ashamed to say I'm an American... Why do we feel the need to vindicate ourselves by blowing the whistle on some perceived ("left wing"/"right wing") threat? Is America as a whole that insecure?

I'm going to bed, wake me up when our heads come back out of our asses.

[edit: Spelling becomes hard when you're tired.]

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Earth Mk. II ]

[TNproud2b]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm sorry you're an American too.



It's OK, let us clear-thinking individuals lead the way.

I got it all under control.

[christ]

OK, so how old is dubya? 50? Assume so.

IQ = Mental age / Physical Age.

If dubya's IQ is 90, and his (physical) age is 50, then his mental age is 45.

A man reaches the peak of mental capacity sometime in his thirties, but is not fit for public office until he has a fifty year old's life experience. What better way of getting both than by choosing a 50 year old with the mental capacity of a 30 year old!

45 is probably a better mental age for a president than 50 is (and certainly no worse), and certainly better than 75 (if dubya's IQ was 150, then his mental age would be 75).

While this might not hold up as sensible science, it indicates that IQ is perhaps not a sensible measure for 'fitness for purpose of Presidential Candidates/ Presidents'

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by daimoni:

<STRONG>Scott_H: I know there's a cool person in there somewhere, but every week or so you go off the deep end... Grow up, and start acting like a proper moderator -- and not a flame baiting idiot.</STRONG>

Translation: daimoni prefers being duped.

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by aleph_null:

<STRONG>Actually, the general populace didn't vote for mr. bush by a fair margin. </STRONG>

Using your argument the general populace also didn't vote for Clinton by an even wider margin.

<STRONG>...people prevented from voting/people whose votes were thrown out by right-wing morons... </STRONG>

The boards of Miami-Dade, Palm Beach County and Broward County were ALL controlled by DEMOCRATS. The only votes that were thrown out were votes that were incompetently cast and the biggest problem with spoiled ballots wasn't even in Florida. It was in still ANOTHER Democratic stronghold - Cook County Illinois. But I suppose you aren't the kind of person to let the facts get in the way of your little fairy tale.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by gwrjr33:
<STRONG>

Translation: daimoni prefers being duped.</STRONG>

Wow, man. That's deep.

[davesimondotcom]

What does being fooled by fake IQ test results say about someone's IQ?

As far as Bush being an idiot - I'm not saying he's a genius, but maybe he is smarter than people give him credit for. After all, despite screaming opposition from the left, most of what he has proposed has gotten through in some form or another. Tax cut, education bill, "patient's bill of rights", etc.

Maybe he's not that great of a speaker. But I've known very intelligent people with horrible stutters. That didn't prevent them from kicking my butt at chess or solving math problems I had trouble with.

Possibly people are confusing IQ with charisma. No question that Clinton had charisma to burn. But whoever won in 2000 would have had less charisma than him.

I'd be more worried about a President's leadership ability than his IQ. We'll see how Bush does in the next 3 years and 4 months. Hopefully he'll be a leader.

Some people are going to be vocal about not liking him, but they'll never give him a fair shot anyway. Just like some people never gave Clinton a fair shot.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>...

Just like some people never gave Clinton a fair shot.</STRONG>

I gave Clinton a fair shot. Heck, I voted for him the first time around. But his "most ethical whitehouse ever" die a quick death.

[Mskr]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
<STRONG>Why are you (3rd person, plural) so eager to take sides? It's U.S. vs. them... we've got to stop the invaders from within, right?
</STRONG>

Sorry to do this to you... But the grammarian in me says to. You mean "2nd person, plural". 3rd person, plural is "they". This is probably best written off to:

<STRONG>
[edit: Spelling becomes hard when you're tired.]

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Earth Mk. II ]</STRONG>

[scottiB]

GW is smart enough to have smart people around him. I can't say why, but if there were a crisis, I'd really like having a smart cookie like Dick Cheney in my corner--if he isn't in the hospital, I mean. I bet every secret service agent is carrying spare batteries for his pacemaker.

And Dick, lay of the fatty foods, man.

[OoklaTheMok]

Possibly people are confusing IQ with charisma. No question that Clinton had charisma to burn.

Yup.

Maybe GW needs to give himself a 17 in charisma just like Bill Gates did.

[Korv]

Originally posted by OoklaTheMok:
<STRONG>
Maybe GW needs to give himself a 17 in charisma just like Bill Gates did.</STRONG>

What in hell does that mean? I've got this feeling its funny, but I so don't understand.

[Earth Mk. II]

Yeah... about the 2nd vs. 3rd person thing... apparently grammar becomes harder when you're tired too (this is why I applied for engineering and not english).

Oh well, it didn't hit me until I was already in bed, and since I didn't catch it I'll just leave it there for some comic relief. Anyone who catches it can laugh, no biggie.

But seriously... all this over an e-mail that anyone with half a brain would know is a joke. Seriously folks, this sort of thing is nothing to get all in a huff about.

...And kudos to OoklaTheMok for the D&D allusion (ha! Earthy used a big word!)

[San Acoustic]

Scott, please name some names to back up your contention. Which member of the media are leftists? Newspapers? Rado? TV? If so, which newspapers? Which networks? Which stations?

The press, radio and TV cannot exist unless they are part of huge conglomerates, and if any independent editorial position ever existed, it has long since disappeared. The chans are not leftist and neither are the entities of which they are a part. They cannot be.

Rupert Murdock's chains aren't leftist. Neither are the New York Times. Neither is Time-AOL. None of them are.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>Scott, please name some names to back up your contention. Which member of the media are leftists? Newspapers? Rado? TV? If so, which newspapers? Which networks? Which stations?

The press, radio and TV cannot exist unless they are part of huge conglomerates, and if any independent editorial position ever existed, it has long since disappeared. The chans are not leftist and neither are the entities of which they are a part. They cannot be.

Rupert Murdock's chains aren't leftist. Neither are the New York Times. Neither is Time-AOL. None of them are.</STRONG>

Actually, NPR, PRI, McNeal Lehrer and the Economist magazine are all independent, though hardly "leftist".

Strike that -- the Economist is for the decriminalization of marijuana... so they must be a bunch of Green party members like myself.

[alphamatrix]

Anyone seen the movie Dr. Strangelove? It's funny.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>Scott, please name some names to back up your contention. Which member of the media are leftists? Newspapers? Rado? TV? If so, which newspapers? Which networks? Which stations?

The press, radio and TV cannot exist unless they are part of huge conglomerates, and if any independent editorial position ever existed, it has long since disappeared. The chans are not leftist and neither are the entities of which they are a part. They cannot be.

Rupert Murdock's chains aren't leftist. Neither are the New York Times. Neither is Time-AOL. None of them are.</STRONG>

THANK YOU for exposing the most laughable myth out there. "Um, yeah, big corporations and people in upper income brackets are generally conservative, unless of course they are part of the liberal media!!!"

I get sooo tired of all these dittoheads parroting "the liberal media" over and over.

"It must be true, cause Rush says it a hundred times a day on the radio!!"

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by FormerLurker:

THANK YOU for exposing the most laughable myth out there. "Um, yeah, big corporations and people in upper income brackets are generally conservative, unless of course they are part of the liberal media!!!"

This is retarded. You people apparently believe that a left-winger who works for a big corporation suddenly stops being a left-winger. Why? Maybe you think they're putting something in their water coolers?

Here's a real puzzler. When Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice was that a right-wing rag too?

[FormerLurker]

Ahh yes, I see the errors in my reasoning now....

The media is, of course, nothing but a collection of crusading young reporters who have secret meetings conspiring among themselves to put all conservatives down, every chance they get, in order to make the world a better place... flaunting their liberal politics in the faces of upper management and multi-millionaire CEOs and Board members... risking their jobs on a daily basis, to slant the facts and wording of every story they write or edit to be pro-liberal and anti-conservative...

Bunch of damn pinkos!

Thanks for straightening me out

[gwrjr33]

Originally posted by FormerLurker:
<STRONG>Ahh yes, I see the errors in my reasoning now....

The media is, of course, nothing but a collection of crusading young reporters who have secret meetings conspiring among themselves to put all conservatives down, every chance they get, in order to make the world a better place... flaunting their liberal politics in the faces of upper management and multi-millionaire CEOs and Board members... risking their jobs on a daily basis, to slant the facts and wording of every story they write or edit to be pro-liberal and anti-conservative...

Bunch of damn pinkos!

Thanks for straightening me out </STRONG>

I think someone else already mentioned this. A poll was taken of the press a few years ago. Over 80% of reporters surveyed voted for Clinton. That's just a fact. You can choose to stick your head in the sand if that's what works for you.

[christ]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
<STRONG>Why are you (3rd person, plural)...
</STRONG>

I
y'all
he/she/it
we
all y'all
they

What is this _you_ business?

[San Acoustic]

I think someone else already mentioned this. A poll was taken of the press a few years ago. Over 80% of reporters surveyed voted for Clinton. That's just a fact. You can choose to stick your head in the sand if that's what works for you.

That's just a fact? On your say-so?

The world is flat. That's just a fact. A poll taken a few years ago says it is. You can bury your head in the sand if that's what works for you.

You cite a poll. When was it taken? Who commissioned it? The Republican Committee for the Election of Hitler? The Democratic Committee for the Election of Stalin? The Third-Party Committee for the Election of the Pillsbury Dough Boy?

Who took it? Gallup? Environics? Or Rush Limbaugh's lobotomised gofers? Ralph Nader's Safe Pop-Up Toasters For The Whole World Or Die Committee?

Which reporters? Political reporters? Medical-journal reporters? Business reporters? (Get your head around this one: 80 per cent of Wall Street Journal writers are leftists � yeah, right) Women's Wear Daily reporters? Paris Match reporters? China Daily reporters? Or just "them," damn their commie eyes, anyway!

Eighty per cent? Nice big figure to hit 'em over the head with, much like a blunt instrument.

Go fly a kite.

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: San Acoustic ]

[brock76]

Well, at least GWB has enough sense to keep his pants on at work in the white house.