General Music Chat

It really dosent Dave, hey I am a Nurse you can trust me on this.

It really dosent Dave, hey I am a Nurse you can trust me on this.

sorry bud, I don't follow?

Ok, I've read a little more now...


Dave, the world "understanding" that George Bush is an idiot or unintelligent, merely betrays the lack of knowledge they themselves possess.

George Bush scored well on his SAT's and there is a formula for determining someone's "estimated" IQ based on a simple mathematical formula, using this data as a basis. When this calculation is made, GW's IQ is in the 120's, most likely somewhere between 120 and 125, and possibly as high as 129. He is certainly not a genius (145 to 165) but neither is he a slacker. His IQ would put him in the "gifted" range.

You have fallen victim to possibly several misleading indicators. One of which is Bush's mannerisms, which are colloquial and relaxed, as opposed to the formality usually displayed by those in positions of high stature. But mannerisms such as a countryish style or being sloppy in appearance (Einstein - Tesla) have NOTHING to do with a person's respective intelligence. Neither does formal education for that matter. For example, brain size has long been understood to be related to processing power and intelligence. Smarter people have physically larger brains. While this is a rudimentary indicator of intelligence, it is nonetheless an accurate indicator, as studies over many decades have shown this correlation to be both substantial and consistent. In Japan (I forget the name of the organization or institute) there is a foundation there, which collects and/or studies brains of prominent individuals throughout history. They long ago, found that criminal leaders and masterminds (who very often are NOT formally educated) generally have large brains, just as well known scientists do. In other words, it is a path choice that is different here. Some criminals are just as intelligent as the world's scientific elite, but have clearly chosen a different way of using their intelligence, or were culturally thrust into a role they never left.

The point being, that appearance, mannerisms, morality or the lack thereof... none of these things have anything to do with indicating someone's intelligence.

Also, popularity seems to skew public perception of estimated IQ's. John F. Kennedy has been attributed an IQ of 174 or so, in popular culture. I can assure you that his IQ was nowhere near that number, and more likely similar to George Bush's. More realistic estimates put JFK's IQ around 125 to 130.

Eintstein's IQ is estimated to be slightly above 160. (about 10 points above mine - although mine has dipped recently. LOL) - Nevertheless, JFK was not in my league, and certainly not in Einstein's.

While Einstein is often thought of as being one of the most intelligent persons who have ever lived, "high genius" actually starts around 166, with the highest genius being above 181 and going into the 200's. Having this high an IQ however, reaches into the billions in terms of rarity. In other words, if everyone in the world were lined up in order of intelligence, from lowest to highest, you would have to pass 5 Billion people before you found one with an IQ of 200.


But it is important to note that some IQ tests are skewed in their bias toward european thought and history. This would cause some people of color or a different cultural persuasion to do more poorly, and hence not give an accurate portrait of their true intelligence.

True intelligence is also, perhaps a misnomer.

Intelligence tests generally balance speed with processing power. Intelligence tests are usually timed. A formula is used to combine the SPEED at which a person processes information, with the processing POWER itself. This then assigns a relative number to the result.

In Einstein's case for example, his genius was not in speed, but processing power. When people are not given a time limit on these tests, some can score as much as 30 points higher or more. Einstein, as a theoretical physicist of historic proportion, was prone to taking his time in pondering the great mysteries he played with in his mind. It is likely, he would be well above the 160 mark in this scenario. He truly was, one of the world's great thinkers. He simply let it all marinate over time.

As musicians and artists, you can take pride in the fact, that Einstein's genius was in his "creativity" of thought. Creative people are generally very intelligent, some exceedingly so. Mozart was a genius. It is not coincidental that his compositions are among the world's greats. Einstein himself was a musician, a very good violinist, and would often sit in a room for not merely hours, but weeks, and simply play violin all day, while simultaneously contemplatiing the nature of matter and time and it's relationship.

Musicians and artists, like Einstein the theoretical physicist, are often abstract thinkers, looking at things in ways that most people would not conceive of. Einstein's brilliance was in this manner, his ability for creative thinking, for abstract thought.

Just be aware of the trap of judging books by their covers. GW was not among our most intelligent presidents, but certainly not among the lowest.

Nixon
Clinton
Carter
F.D.R.

These are some who are among the most intelligent presidents we have had in recent times.

But having a high IQ does not necessarily relate to having a successful presidency.

Presidents with the highest IQ have been among the worst presidents in our history, and presidents with lower IQ's have been among our best. Leadership, rather than raw computing power, is often more important in moving things forward and getting things done.

Intelligence alone will not assure good policy.

I'm glad that the rest of the world "love's" America again. And it only took decimating our economy for the foreseeable future to accomplish it.

This is a trade-off most Americans will soon reject.

Under JFK, a team was assembled who were often referred to as "The best and brightest" all Ivy League college graduates, who were in charge of managing the Vietnam war. You remember how that turned out don't you?

One of the "brightest" Robert McNamara who recently passed away, was the main architect, which is why it was often referred to as "McNamara's War".

Intelligent people can sometimes be profoundly foolish.

I think ppl made their opinion of G.W based on his actions, during his 8 years of presidency, and not his I.Q. score! Like you said: "having a high IQ does not necessarily relate to having a successful presidency". I.Q. scores are irrelevant to me and they are NOT flawless! They can be beaten, just like lie detectors. The test doesn't measure Intelligence, it measures knowledge. Having done quite a few I.Q. tests myself, I can tell you that a question that appears in a lot of I.Q test is: What's an Apex? Knowing that an Apex is the peak of a pyramid, doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you knowledgeable!!

Another example: A recent IQ test asked which of four fruits was different. It was the one with more than one seed; but what if you were not familiar with these fruits? Obviously this test is culturally biased. You are assumed to have certain knowledge, yet you are being tested for intelligence, not knowledge.

Intelligence is measured by the ability of reasoning with logic, and not the ability of storing lots of information in your brain.

Saying that: "the world "understanding" that George Bush is an idiot or unintelligent, merely betrays the lack of knowledge they themselves possess. " is a bit one-sided view (no disrespect). It implies that everyone who think that G.W. is an idiot (including some of the smartest ppl in this world), are missed informed. I wouldn't go that far!!!

Bush was an intelligent idiot.

I am from the same state as GWB I didn't really see anything inteligent about him. He kind of reminds me of the son of the Sheriff in Smokey And The Bandit 2 I believe it was.
"Deddy your hat let me get your hat" you remember after the top got cut off of their car and he was holding the dads hat LOL. Deddy I'll get that bad ole Saddam. I'll get him for you Deddy LMAO! Oh and it really made him sound inteligent when he said the word Nucalur weapons yeah that sounds like a genious. That makes me proud to say he is from Texas NOT! and I am a Conservative. You know they say that history will tell if a President was a good President in this case he will go down in history as the baffoon that destroyed the U.S.

Dave,

The term "intelligence" is ambigous, but I understand you to be referring to the computational aspect. Processing power of the brain. This aspect "IS" tested on standardized intelligence tests. Understanding the difference between an isosceles triangle and an equilateral triangle will not assist you in the task of seeing a set of geometric shapes of various colors, and understanding their relationship, thereby solving the question of which shape would follow next in the series. The tests measure speed as well as processing ability. I think however, and I stated this previously, that you and I would agree that these tests inherently contain a certain amount of bias, however unintentional, and therefore are only one indicator of intelligence.


Regarding Bush over 8 years.

His biggest achilles heel was Iraq, and much of this was due to incessant media bias and attacks, along with the length of the effort. Americans don't like protracted conflicts, although the cold war itself, was in effect one such enduring conflict. We just fought undeclared wars through third party countries, and spent an enormous amount of money doing so.

Media bias is all too evident. Most of the news stations ran an ongoing tally of America deaths, always totalling the deaths of Americans in Iraq on charts or superimposed graphics. Since Obama when have you seen these same graphics continue to be used? Sure, they tell us that 2 Americans died today, but you won't see them then put a large graphic in your face with the running tally. It is mentioned briefly, then quickly moved on, to how unimortant Sarah Palin is. So unimportant that she dominates the news, over far more pressing issues. Surely I am not the only one who has noticed how they describer as completely irrelevant and then go on to defy their own logic, by showing her to be so relevant that they spend a half hour criticizing her decision to leave office. That is, when they are not mocking her choice of clothes, or berating her for having the audacity to have been born attractive.

But go ahead an tell me, when the last time was that you saw CNN or MSNBC or any of the others, emblazon a graphic on the screen with the running tally of deaths in Iraq, in the way they did under Bush? What about Abu Ghraib? He didn't close it. Do you see his media harem decrying it, and assaulting him over it, on a daily basis?

I am not a George Bush fan. I didn't vote for him the first time, and was INCENSED that America did. I did however vote for him the second time, because I don't feel it is generally wise to change presidents in the middle of a war, where continuity is threatened and could pose an even greater risk to American lives overseas.

However...

Bush, like his level of intelligence, is neither as good as some would believe, nor as poor as others would portray him to be.

Bush made many noteworthy achievements during his 2 terms, not the least of which are preventing another 9/11 style attack on American soil as well as taking the fight TO THE TERRORISTS, as well as making the largest funding of AIDS prevention measures for Africa, than any of his predecessors before him, no matter the party. He opened up markets worldwide through FTA's, doubled trade with Africa, Libya renounced terrorism under Bush... LIBYA!

Bush has gotten a bad rap, by impatient Americans and particularly liberal media outlets who merely used it to insure the next president would be a democrat. Bush has shown character in the aftermath of it all, and remained silent, allowing his successor to do his job without deleterious comments from a former president. More character I must say, than Obama, who can't seem to reciprocate, and is still blaming Bush for everything from the economy to where his own missing sock might be.

Bush kept us safe for over seven years, and thwarted dozens of other planned attacks worldwide, saving not only our citizens but thousands of others from other nations. One such attack had intended to blow up 10 planes internationally, which would have resulted in more deaths than experienced on 9/11.

Is Bush responsible for 9/11? He had been in office 3 months. American planes had never previously been used as missiles for terrorism. Terrorists always demanded money, freed prisoners and TV time in the past. This was unprecedented.

It will be the job of historians after time and events have unfolded to correctly assess how good or bad his presidency was, and he may not live to see it, if it paints a rosier picture of his administration. Only recently have historians decided that Hoover wasn't as bad a president as previously thought. That only took 50 years.


In any event, LOL, Bush's accomplishments will cetainly end up a little fuller than this:

Uh, Dave you said the French dont think their sh*t stinks.
Hence the trust the nurse joke.
Oh, never mind.

, I get it now...duh!!!

But, for the record, I said: "quite a few French seem to think that their sh*t don't stink!!!". I did't say ALL French!

Remember, I don't like to generalize

Bush is an intelligent human being. Trying to correlate bad decisions with his overall intelligence is the mistake I am pointing out. He is not a baffoon. His mind is stronger than the majority of his detractors. That is a statistical fact. Average intelligence is between 85 and 115.

And for those of you who NOW criticize his efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, just remember back in time to how you felt at 9/11. There were MANY Americans who were ready to burn every moslem to the ground, and victimize every person they could find wearing a cloth around their head, including those from India, who very often were not even Muslim.

He deserves more praise for thwarting all the planned attacks since, than he does criticisms for continuing a prolonged conflict. Far more importantly than whether weapons of mass destruction were ever there or not, is the greater promise of trying to establish a foothold, a Democracy in that area of the middle east, as a masthead against not only convcentional terrorism, but economic terrorism, where there remained a threat of oil rich countries banding together into a force that could disrupt the progressive order of the world. The progress of history needs to move forward, not backward. These people cannot be ignored. 9/11 was an ever-present reminder of that. What then is the solution? It is either to endure continued attacks and threats on freedom and progress, or to make a bold move to remake and remold the threat, into something non-threatening. Bush chose to be bold and deal with it once and for all now, hoping for a lasting foothold that could spread through the region, and make the Middle East resemble more, the relationships we have with European countries, who we were once at war with, but now are steadfast allies with.

Relationships with former enemies, has now become united partners who are locked into a world economy that suffers when a trading partner suffers. If you hurt, it will hurt me. When you are in trouble, we will assist, when we are in trouble, you will assist us. Stability. The Middle East remains one of the most unstable regions of the world, but their money from oil revenues makes them particularly threatening. They can finance things such as nuclear weapons. Ignoring them is not possible. Letting a region often motivated by irrational religious fervor, rise to prominence through their oil wealth, is also not a possibility. History understands all too well, what happens when religious fervor is financed through strong economy and strong manpower. Think Hitler. Think Japan.

Living comfortably in North America or Europe, it may be far too easy to assume that life will always be good, and be free. But when there is a growing threat, which is now being heavily financed, this is not so. We can be thrown back into the dark ages more easily, than I believe some of you realize.

It's not unlike living next to a volcano. When decades or even hundreds of years have passed without incident, it may be easy to assume life will always be safe from that threat now. After all, look how long it has been without incident? Until that one day when it erupts and changes life forever, and everyone is once again reminded, that even the passage of time should not dissuade us from vigilance.

I think Bush wasn't cut out to be a politician, I think he was just trying to fill his father and family's shoe.

Plus, the more we learn about his administration, the more we realize that Bush was only the puppet, of the puppeteer Cheney...lol

I think Bush wasn't cut out to be a politician, I think he was just trying to fill his father and family's shoe.

Plus, the more we learn about his administration, the more we realize that Bush was only the puppet, of the puppeteer Cheney...lol

I disagree with the first proposition. I think Oliver Stone, despite how cartoonishly offensive his movie "W" was, was on the right path, that Bush in a sense wanted to prove himself to his father, or even out-do his father. Well, not out-do, but "correct" his father. I think it is true that he believed his father should have went into Baghdad during Gulf-1 and that in his mind, 9/11 was proof that we had now suffered for this "mistake" of inaction. As a former f*ck-up and party-boy, he also had something to prove personally.

As to the second, I don't know.

The same was said of Reagan, who is still generally a beloved president and thought of as a good president. It is doubtful that Bush was less hands-on than Reagan was.

Presidents bring in staff they trust and depend on them for advice, but they make the final decisions. It is always unclear, particularly on questionable decisions, how much any president did or did not know. They are often protected historically, from this kind of scrutiny. It took the revelation of the Nixon tapes to get him to resign. Until then he was denying any knowledge of Watergate at all. Same with Reagan and Oliver North.

The most conscientious president America has had in modern times, was Jimmy Carter, also denounced as one of our worst presidents, He was also one of the smartest presidents in our history, with a very high IQ.

Yet, even Jimmy Carter was made aware of an ongoing CIA program, started well before his administration that supplied prostitutes, to King Hussein, a moslem, his favorite being one particular Jewish prostitute, whenever he would come to America for official visits. Carter became aware of this program and left it in place. The point is, that politics and particularly high-level world-leader politics, is a dirty business. There are no clean souls in that game. And generally, the underlings are used to carry these unsavory practices out, and keep their president from being tainted by them, whether they knew something or not.


One man, a president, cannot have access to all knowledge and be briefed on all matters that exist. The country has thousands of government agencies, and the President is one person.

You hire people you believe in, to delegate many responsibilities, and trust them to follow your vision, but they always have a large amount of free reign in making these decisions, unless or until, the matter is one of international importance or urgency, or has the potential to become an embarrassment.

You have the people under you, who you believe in, and they have the people under them, who they believe in. Without this, a president would be making decisions based on short briefings without full knowledge of the circumstances involved, or why a program which seemed unecessary was VERY neccessary. The people under you are engaged in their various programs on a more intimate level, and have the time to delve into details, unlike a President who is alone at the top and over ALL the programs ultimately. Other than pressing issues or pet projects, the President has to trust his subordinates to micro-manage the rest of it.

How many responsibilities do we have in a day, as only a single individual and yet forget things from time to time, or feel overwhelmed. Imagine being held responsible for the nation itself, and ultimately the state of world affairs!

Every President takes that Job seriously, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM ages immensely from the pressures it holds. Look at pictures of Lincoln in his early presidency and then after the Civil War took hold. Same with Clinton, Carter, all of them. Every one of them I have seen, shows the signs on their faces. It is the worst job imaginable.

I never seen W., actually....not interested by it neither. I never rely on movies for historical facts.

My question is what happened to all those Code Pink faggots?
obumer has just as many (perhaps more) solders running around blowing away "innocent" people as Bush did.
By the way some of my er..hum friends who have rather, shall we say shady contacts say there has been a large increase in covert search and destroy missions to boot.

Where are all these rabidly anti war protesters now?
Humm, whom was paying these bastards in the first place.

Damn, I forget how to spell acorn.

well sans, they've spent BILLIONS creating this illusion that there are two parties, and have spent BILLIONS more on propaganda of wedge issues such as war, abortion, taxes, environment, etc..

The sad reality of it is that corporations OWN america. THere's only ONE party and it's facist from beginning to end. They own WALL ST, they own the FDA, they own the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, CIA, FBI, NSA, and they own congress and the executive branch. Karl Rove and Cheyney were nothing but corporate axemen put into positions of power to watch and control the exec branch. The same goes for Paulson and friends today.

Keep blaming people based on partisan politics and you are nothing more than a willing participant in a bullshit story.

I don't have the answers, but there's only three politicians I trust, only because they were TRASHED by the media, and even their own parties every step of the way, those would be Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and believe it or not - Ralph Nader... If you ever stepped past the propaganda, you would know he's without a doubt "For the people" - all of them are.

The rest of the politicians? Well .. actions speak louder than words, and we KNOW who they work for.

We vote them out and another head grows back... the only thing that might work at this point is a massive and sadly - a violent - uprising... guillotine day...

sad, but true.. it's past the point of peaceful solutions. The only question that remains is when we (as a society) get sick of it and snap. It's coming.. it always does (historically speaking), just a matter of when.

So ... not to sound like a anti-american buzz-kill lol, but actually my thoughts on this are more american than anything I've seen from DC in my lifetime...