IQ

[djmaddmartin]

President Bush Ranks Lowest IQ in 50 Years of US Presidents.
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 published its research to the educational
community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report
among others.

There have been twelve presidents over the past 50
years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on
scholarly achievements, writings that they produced without aid of staff,
their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological
factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain system of
intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each
president as accurate to within five percentage points: In order by
presidential term:

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 Bush (R)

182.. William J. Clinton (D)

091.. George W. Bush (R)

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 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 at
155.
President G.W. Bush 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 G W Bush:

>His low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of 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, which made it more difficult
to arrive at an assessment. We relied 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
Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.

[Hulud]

i hope you know its a fake right?
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html

[tony]

IQ has nothing to do with the ability to succeed nor does it correlate to leadership

[MachNU]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH This dumbass is still posting..holy crap i thought this time he would come with something good. Just once more you dumbass falls for democratic website stuff. DJ = DUMBASS

[CSquared]

yeah dude i would check your facts next time around. I'm a democrat and avid hater of George Bush, and even I say you are an ass if you took that seriously.

Anyway... Arent you technically retarded if you iq is that low?

[MachNU]

LOL yeah, you owuld be considered techincally inapt, which if he thought a president with that low of an IQ could get that high, then his must be even lower!

[{X}Echo419]

yeah dude i would check your facts next time around. I'm a democrat and avid hater of George Bush, and even I say you are an ass if you took that seriously.

Anyway... Arent you technically retarded if you iq is that low?

it's bad when someone who drinks that mucj Kool-Aid to say that....damn

^just kidding^ don't flip out

[HyPer50]

LMAO Bill Clinton with an IQ over 180? Ya fucking right... more bs. And seeing as how DJmartin the notorious Bush hater posted this, I'm gonna call even more bullshit.

[MachNU]

HAHAHAHA I just noticed that they even spelled on the presidents names wrong!

[malfeas99]

Hahahaha, I knew it was only a matter of time before this douche tried to pass off some internet hoax as real. I figured it was either going to be the 'blue/red states listed by IQ' or this.

Loooooooooooololol.

[MachNU]

LOL this isnt the first time, he had tried posting tons of webstie things like this before, and gets FLAMED for it. I jsut cant wait for QD's adn jamies responces, they will be funny!

[djmaddmartin]

I know its a fake. I just wanted to see how quickly you guys could sniff it out. I just thought it was funny. Was looking more for responses by rubies. Good to see IA is a little quiker than I thought. LOL On another subject, how about that battle of the shops!!!! And what was up with the midget wrestling?

[djmaddmartin]

Ok, on a different note. I want your responses to this article. Its balanced, just want to see what IA thinks. I have two brothers one who served in the Gulf war and one who is currently serving in Iraq. Both feel Bush cherry picked the intelligence to push for the invasion of Iraq. What do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051114/..._pr_wh/us_iraq

[man]

haha, you just dont give up. In no way did Bush mislead the people with false intelligence. If anything you should blame his advisors, stop being so ignorant and learn how the government works.

[MachNU]

LOL to cover all this over he said he was just seeing if anyone on IQ could see this was false....i BET me blieved it himself and wanted something to argue against bush!

[djmaddmartin]

Ok dude. Most people know it was false. Been that way for months. But I got what I wanted. Typical rubie reaction. Except Hulud. I love razin conservatives. But the fact is todays poll put Bush's approval rating at the lowest its ever been. 36%. I was watching this morning on C-SPAN, a Republican Senator from Nebraska who also disapproves of what Bush has done with the war and the economy and had a very convicing point of view. Even bringing up points I hadn't even relized. He was level headed and very intelligent. He did however agree with your point that he believed that the blame was more on Bush's advisors and faulty intel than Bush himself. But then again Bush doesn't make much of the decisions anyway so where does the fault lie when all you do is rely on other to run your presidency. We all know Sadam had to go. No one on either side of the polital fence will deny that. It was the way it was done, the piss poor timing and the false intelligence that even Republicans are upset about. They voted to give Bush the power to use force if Sadam failed to abide by the resolutions but many disagreed with the way he handled the situation and how it was implemented.

LOL to cover all this over he said he was just seeing if anyone on IQ could see this was false....i BET me blieved it himself and wanted something to argue against bush!

[HyPer50]

Ok dude. Most people know it was false. Been that way for months. But I got what I wanted. Typical rubie reaction. Except Hulud. I love razin conservatives. But the fact is todays poll put Bush's approval rating at the lowest its ever been. 36%. I was watching this morning on C-SPAN, a Republican Senator from Nebraska who also disapproves of what Bush has done with the war and the economy and had a very convicing point of view. Even bringing up points I hadn't even relized. He was level headed and very intelligent. He did however agree with your point that he believed that the blame was more on Bush's advisors and faulty intel than Bush himself. But then again Bush doesn't make much of the decisions anyway so where does the fault lie when all you do is rely on other to run your presidency. We all know Sadam had to go. No one on either side of the polital fence will deny that. It was the way it was done, the piss poor timing and the false intelligence that even Republicans are upset about. They voted to give Bush the power to use force if Sadam failed to abide by the resolutions but many disagreed with the way he handled the situation and how it was implemented.

Hey.... atleast I'm not gonna be voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 like you will be

[djmaddmartin]

Ok. nice comments. Learn that middle school. Try to be a little more civil.

haha, you just dont give up. In no way did Bush mislead the people with false intelligence. If anything you should blame his advisors, stop being so ignorant and learn how the government works.

[malfeas99]

No, you didn't know it was false. No, you didn't think we'd call you on it.

Like just about every other 'fact' you've tried to bring to the table, you have shown to be completely, laughably, utterly wrong.

You got caught in a flat-out lie because you believed something that made you feel good without doing your due diligence, and now you get to look like a complete ass (again) thanks to it.

Acting like it was just a 'test' or you were just 'fishing for reactions' is something that might have worked in second grade. It does not work with real adults.

[djmaddmartin]

Idiot??? Ok clearly anything I say will not be believed. Like you didin't notice the complete doctoring of the so called email, which I didn't even get from a email but you didn't notice that did you.

I've also noticed a trend. Anytime I state a interesting fact that can't be debunked you blow over it with personal attacks and retoric. You guys aka the right wing attackers don't say a damn thing about it other than to enjoy calling me names. Nice.

36% approval rating. Explain that........Poll after poll say people don't support or agree with you or Bush. Even many of his own Republicans are getting fed up. Another fact.

But lets get to the nitty gritty. Your very distubing to me and many people in this country. And when I say you I mean the right wing conservative republicans.

While your passion for what you believe in is comendable, you react very violently to any view other than your own. That is a very dangerous trend as free speech and our basic rights are the things that are at the recieving end of your attacks.

Things I find disturbing:

An active movement towards a theological based government. History has proven that leads to nothing but disaster and holocost.

I was flipping through the channels on tv and happened to stop at one of the christian networks. Usually it has the normal thumping but today I was in for a treat. 20 dancer all in military attire dancing around a stage to the "the lord is great". Does this at all disturb you? How about someone not in this country who might happen upon this.

My brother recently came back from Iraq, and like most of the troops who served have a unique perspecitive seeing their fellow soldiers blown up. Every day he watches the news it pisses him off more and more. We have a President that has no concept of what war is and its horrors. Sorry, the national guard doesn't count as active duty. And while he loves his country doing a tour in South Korea, Afganistan, and Iraq he is no lover of Bush because he has seen the truth and what is coming from our President isn't that. You have been actively missled on a grand scale. Time will show this administrations true colors.

My other older brother also served in the Gulf War. He has lots of metal and plastic parts in him but believed that that war was just. He deals with pain everyday and will be seeing doctors for the rest of his life. You'd think he'd be pissed about being crippled in the Guld War. He isn't. He's pissed about this war and its bamboozling president. I don't blame him. He is currently working on passing the Florida Bar Exam to fight the real battle which isn't in Iraq, its right here at home against people who take your rights right from under your nose.

I look forward to your personal attacks which only make you....look bad.

No, you didn't know it was false. No, you didn't think we'd call you on it.

Like just about every other 'fact' you've tried to bring to the table, you have shown to be completely, laughably, utterly wrong.

You got caught in a flat-out lie because you believed something that made you feel good without doing your due diligence, and now you get to look like a complete ass (again) thanks to it.

Acting like it was just a 'test' or you were just 'fishing for reactions' is something that might have worked in second grade. It does not work with real adults.

[malfeas99]

Idiot??? Ok clearly anything I say will not be believed. Like you didin't notice the complete doctoring of the so called email, which I didn't even get from a email but you didn't notice that did you.

I've also noticed a trend. Anytime I state a interesting fact that can't be debunked you blow over it with personal attacks and retoric. You guys aka the right wing attackers don't say a damn thing about it other than to enjoy calling me names. Nice.

36% approval rating. Explain that........Poll after poll say people don't support or agree with you or Bush. Even many of his own Republicans are getting fed up. Another fact.

But lets get to the nitty gritty. Your very distubing to me and many people in this country. And when I say you I mean the right wing conservative republicans.

While your passion for what you believe in is comendable, you react very violently to any view other than your own. That is a very dangerous trend as free speech and our basic rights are the things that are at the recieving end of your attacks.

Things I find disturbing:

An active movement towards a theological based government. History has proven that leads to nothing but disaster and holocost.

I was flipping through the channels on tv and happened to stop at one of the christian networks. Usually it has the normal thumping but today I was in for a treat. 20 dancer all in military attire dancing around a stage to the "the lord is great". Does this at all disturb you? How about someone not in this country who might happen upon this.

My brother recently came back from Iraq, and like most of the troops who served have a unique perspecitive seeing their fellow soldiers blown up. Every day he watches the news it pisses him off more and more. We have a President that has no concept of what war is and its horrors. Sorry, the national guard doesn't count as active duty. And while he loves his country doing a tour in South Korea, Afganistan, and Iraq he is no lover of Bush because he has seen the truth and what is coming from our President isn't that. You have been actively missled on a grand scale. Time will show this administrations true colors.

My other older brother also served in the Gulf War. He has lots of metal and plastic parts in him but believed that that war was just. He deals with pain everyday and will be seeing doctors for the rest of his life. You'd think he'd be pissed about being crippled in the Guld War. He isn't. He's pissed about this war and its bamboozling president. I don't blame him. He is currently working on passing the Florida Bar Exam to fight the real battle which isn't in Iraq, its right here at home against people who take your rights right from under your nose.

I look forward to your personal attacks which only make you....look bad.

You don't get it.

I'm not a conservative right-wing republican.

I never voted for Bush.

I am JUST here to expose your pompous self-fellating lies for what they are.

It is a RARITY for you to make a cogent, salient point on this board, not the norm.

I will address just three things that you said in all your inane ramblings:

1) 36% approval rating. Explain that........Poll after poll say people don't support or agree with you or Bush. Even many of his own Republicans are getting fed up. Another fact.

It would make more sense if you were to compare that to the approval ratings of other presidents around this time in their presidencies. If you do, you'll find that Bush's approval rating isn't devastatingly low (I think Clinton's was 42% or something, but don't quote me on that, look it up). No doubt things such as high gas prices and the hurricaines also contributed to that. Generally, if people are pissed off, they're stupid enough to think that it's the president's fault. Do I think Bush is a failure overall as a president? Yes. Do I tout pointless approval ratings of a lame duck president to prove my point? No. That's the difference between people who have learned to think and people who have not.

2) I was flipping through the channels on tv and happened to stop at one of the christian networks. Usually it has the normal thumping but today I was in for a treat. 20 dancer all in military attire dancing around a stage to the "the lord is great". Does this at all disturb you? How about someone not in this country who might happen upon this.

It would disturb me a great deal more if it were state-sponsored or state-mandated. Otherwise, however much I do or do not approve, it's a private organization performing a song. I thought you were all about free speech? No, you're just about free speech that you agree with.

3) An active movement towards a theological based government. History has proven that leads to nothing but disaster and holocost.

You sad, sad little man. You have no idea where your own political ideology takes YOU. You're right, that theocracies lead to oppressive governments. SO DOES LEFTIST COLLECTIVISM. As a matter of fact, if you'll look at the large-scale massacres and government oppression over the past 100 years in the western world (middle east is another matter entirely), you'll find that collectivist ideology has killed over 100 million people.

But hey, Bush sucks and we should just try to get it right, eh? Surely they were just missing some proper timing or some shit.

Get a grip, poindexter. You can't win here, because you haven't learn to reason, and your ideology is fundamentally fallacious.

[djmaddmartin]

LEFTIST COLLECTIVISM.....?????? Wooo nice word

Its more complex than that:





Have fun with this one. I will enjoy reading your rant.

You don't get it.

I'm not a conservative right-wing republican.

I never voted for Bush.

I am JUST here to expose your pompous self-fellating lies for what they are.

It is a RARITY for you to make a cogent, salient point on this board, not the norm.

I will address just three things that you said in all your inane ramblings:

1) 36% approval rating. Explain that........Poll after poll say people don't support or agree with you or Bush. Even many of his own Republicans are getting fed up. Another fact.

It would make more sense if you were to compare that to the approval ratings of other presidents around this time in their presidencies. If you do, you'll find that Bush's approval rating isn't devastatingly low (I think Clinton's was 42% or something, but don't quote me on that, look it up). No doubt things such as high gas prices and the hurricaines also contributed to that. Generally, if people are pissed off, they're stupid enough to think that it's the president's fault. Do I think Bush is a failure overall as a president? Yes. Do I tout pointless approval ratings of a lame duck president to prove my point? No. That's the difference between people who have learned to think and people who have not.

2) I was flipping through the channels on tv and happened to stop at one of the christian networks. Usually it has the normal thumping but today I was in for a treat. 20 dancer all in military attire dancing around a stage to the "the lord is great". Does this at all disturb you? How about someone not in this country who might happen upon this.

It would disturb me a great deal more if it were state-sponsored or state-mandated. Otherwise, however much I do or do not approve, it's a private organization performing a song. I thought you were all about free speech? No, you're just about free speech that you agree with.

3) An active movement towards a theological based government. History has proven that leads to nothing but disaster and holocost.

You sad, sad little man. You have no idea where your own political ideology takes YOU. You're right, that theocracies lead to oppressive governments. SO DOES LEFTIST COLLECTIVISM. As a matter of fact, if you'll look at the large-scale massacres and government oppression over the past 100 years in the western world (middle east is another matter entirely), you'll find that collectivist ideology has killed over 100 million people.

But hey, Bush sucks and we should just try to get it right, eh? Surely they were just missing some proper timing or some shit.

Get a grip, poindexter. You can't win here, because you haven't learn to reason, and your ideology is fundamentally fallacious.

[malfeas99]

LEFTIST COLLECTIVISM.....?????? Wooo nice word

Its more complex than that:





Have fun with this one. I will enjoy reading your rant.

Yes, leftist collectivist. Because there's also rightist collectvists (fascists). The ideologies are actually not that far apart in their extremes. Do some reading on the Russian and German intelligence agents that were sent to the other side to convert communists to fascists and vice versa. It was actually very easy, because they're almost exactly the same in practice and result.

Do you honestly think I've never seen one of those graphs? Do you honestly think it has anything to do with what I said to you, and your complete lack of response to any of it?

Once again, you've shown that you can't actually say anything unless it's been spoon-fed to you by someone else. I'm sure after some more frenetic searching on dailykos or democraticunderground, you'll respond with some very pithy political cartoons illustrating how stupid Bush is. Again.

[Flamed03]

Ok clearly anything I say will not be believed. .

DING DING DING! we have a winner!

im a republican. lets give the reasons why: i have a job, i dont want wellfare or government handouts, im not gay, i want to keep my guns, i hate people who are useless and have no job, i hate anyone who thinks i or any other working american owe them, be it because they can't get a job, or because they were inslaved 10 generations ago, hell, i could go on, but im ready to go to bed. so, to hillary and her supporters,

[Elrichthain]

im a republican. lets give the reasons why: i have a job, i dont want wellfare or government handouts, im not gay, i want to keep my guns, i hate people who are useless and have no job, i hate anyone who thinks i or any other working american owe them, be it because they can't get a job, or because they were inslaved 10 generations ago, hell, i could go on, but im ready to go to bed. so, to hillary and her supporters,

Haha, are you serious? You're a republican because you're not gay? Because it's a well-established fact that if you are not gay then you are obviously republican, and vice-versa. And because you want to keep your guns? Because if you weren't republican or the country was run by non-republicans then all guns will be destroyed. It will be grandfathered in, too. Troops will go to everybody's house and take guns they already have. And in the meantime, probably kill you for inslaving them 10 generations ago, because non republicans are all black. Furthermore, I didn't realize it was so obvious that people think that you owe them because they simply can't get a job, or that they're black. We must not have hidden that well from you, you smart devil.

Wow, is this what republicanism is? I wonder why people hate you guys so much. Pick up a fucking book before you vote in this country, ok?

[Flamed03]

Haha, are you serious? You're a republican because you're not gay? Because it's a well-established fact that if you are not gay then you are obviously republican, and vice-versa. And because you want to keep your guns? Because if you weren't republican or the country was run by non-republicans then all guns will be destroyed. It will be grandfathered in, too. Troops will go to everybody's house and take guns they already have. And in the meantime, probably kill you for inslaving them 10 generations ago, because non republicans are all black. Furthermore, I didn't realize it was so obvious that people think that you owe them because they simply can't get a job, or that they're black. We must not have hidden that well from you, you smart devil.

Wow, is this what republicanism is? I wonder why people hate you guys so much. Pick up a fucking book before you vote in this country, ok?

im a college graduate, so i picked up more than one book in my life.
about the guns, look at the brady bill. look at the countless organizations hell bent on removing all guns from private ownership. my father owned a retail establishment that carried firearms. he had a FFL, and every year there were more imposing laws limiting firearms purchases, such as the 24 hour delay between purchase and delivery, the nics instant background check (which could take up to 48 hours) and i could go on. not one of them reduced crime. we dont need more gun laws, we just need to act on those allready in existence.
about being gay. i dont believe in gay marrage. nothing more. marrage is a union between man and woman. i dont care what you put in your ass. thats your problem, not mine.
about welfare and minorities. welfare is stupid. i have no heart for worthless people living off of my taxes. they can all starve and rot for all i care. democrats tend to take money from the rich to feed the poor. fuck that. why penalize someone who has worked hard all their life to become rich. know countless people who are on welfare and government handouts. they are all lazy and worthless. as for minorities, no problem with any of them. i cannot stand it when i hear a black person talking about slavery. neither can my black friends. jesus people, get over it! if life is so bad here, leave! we wont miss you.

[CSquared]

This is a rediculously stupid...

I said in an earlier post that i am i democrat and openly hate our president. As much as i'd love to jump in here i wont... because... This type of arguement is not one that will ever see an agreement of some sort.

Fact is, the people most likely to appear and post in this thread are those that feel strongly either way. You won't see too many(if any) that are actually on the fence. Meaning neither are you are going to have a sudden change of heart. Instead, you are just going to throw pointless jabs back and forth. Regardless of who presents a better arguement noone is going to raise either of your hands in victory...

So in conclusion...

Why the fuck bother?

[CSquared]

Both of you... shut... the ... fuck... up...

Good-day,
Chris

[malfeas99]

Both of you... shut... the ... fuck... up...

Good-day,
Chris

Yes, because people having a political argument in a politics forum is just SO UNCOUTH.

Christ, that's like you barging into your mother's bedroom and telling her to stop riding me like a bucking bronco.

POLITICAL FORUMS CONTAIN POLITICAL ARGUMENTS AND COMMENTARY.

If you do not like it, do not involve yourself. Or go into the religion forum and tell people to stop talking about Islam or Christianity. Or the suspension forum and tell them to shut up when they argue about which coilover setup is better.

Fuck, you're stupid.

[CSquared]

Yes, because people having a political argument in a politics forum is just SO UNCOUTH.

Christ, that's like you barging into your mother's bedroom and telling her to stop riding me like a bucking bronco.

POLITICAL FORUMS CONTAIN POLITICAL ARGUMENTS AND COMMENTARY.

If you do not like it, do not involve yourself. Or go into the religion forum and tell people to stop talking about Islam or Christianity. Or the suspension forum and tell them to shut up when they argue about which coilover setup is better.

Fuck, you're stupid.

Actually asshole, I tell you to shut the fuck up because neither of you are accomplishing anything with your inane posts. Aside from the fact that both of you are closedminded about your beliefs, there is nothing else to be gained or established.

If you feel so strongly go write to the local congressman instead of wasting your time discussing such topics on an atlanta automobile forum. I understand that this IS a political forum, but there are certainly more constructive things that can be said in this area.

As far as the religion forum... They may as well fucking combine the two because you have to same reoccuring battle over and over again. Literally you could create an outline for an arguement, fill in the blanks with the needed topic (Christianity, George Bush, God, Heaver, Hell, O.j. Simpson), and paste. At least then you wouldn't have to waste the 20 minutes it took you to look up your words and such in the dictionary or thesauras.

As far as my mom... Enjoy... I dont like her much anyway...

Later.

p.s. 3 cheers for torture

[Elrichthain]

Actually asshole, I tell you to shut the fuck up because neither of you are accomplishing anything with your inane posts. Aside from the fact that both of you are closedminded about your beliefs, there is nothing else to be gained or established.

If you feel so strongly go write to the local congressman instead of wasting your time discussing such topics on an atlanta automobile forum. I understand that this IS a political forum, but there are certainly more constructive things that can be said in this area.

This is a very unproductive post, CRAMER. First of all, by namecalling you achieve nothing (as goes for the others who do so so often). Secondly, the best way for a closedminded person the open their mind is to hear the argument by the other extreme. It is sometimes VERY inane, but still productive, if at least to make them feel better. Don't suggest people to "stop wasting [their] time discussing such topics on an atlanta automobile forum," because this, like you said "IS a political forum." If you don't like the idea of people discussing poitics, then please, help yourself and others by not going through the "News & Politics" section of an open forum.

[CSquared]

This is a very unproductive post, CRAMER. First of all, by namecalling you achieve nothing (as goes for the others who do so so often). Secondly, the best way for a closedminded person the open their mind is to hear the argument by the other extreme. It is sometimes VERY inane, but still productive, if at least to make them feel better. Don't suggest people to "stop wasting [their] time discussing such topics on an atlanta automobile forum," because this, like you said "IS a political forum." If you don't like the idea of people discussing poitics, then please, help yourself and others by not going through the "News & Politics" section of an open forum.

I assure you that niether of these guys are going to wake up tomorrow morning and say "you know... maybe ____ was right...". Half of this thread hasnt even been about politics. The previous posts are about 35% factual information laid upon a structure of personal jabs. As i said, i wouldnt mind if it were two guys having a civilized discussion saying, "You know maybe i dont agree totally, but you DO have some decent points." Instead from their beginning of their "battle" it has been malfeas99 trying to point out and exploit djmaddmartin's "stupidity".

Although i do believe you have the right to express your own opinion, and you once again pointed out the fact that this is a political forum, I just don't see any point in the "conversation" they are carrying. I enjoy a political debate just as much as the next guy but If you are going to talk politics... then ACTUALLY talk politics. Half of the shit in this thread i wouldnt say to my worst enemy if we were having such a discussion.

Whatever though. I have no further interest in this thread.

Best,
Cramer

[malfeas99]

Actually asshole, I tell you to shut the fuck up because neither of you are accomplishing anything with your inane posts. Aside from the fact that both of you are closedminded about your beliefs, there is nothing else to be gained or established.

If you feel so strongly go write to the local congressman instead of wasting your time discussing such topics on an atlanta automobile forum. I understand that this IS a political forum, but there are certainly more constructive things that can be said in this area.

As far as the religion forum... They may as well fucking combine the two because you have to same reoccuring battle over and over again. Literally you could create an outline for an arguement, fill in the blanks with the needed topic (Christianity, George Bush, God, Heaver, Hell, O.j. Simpson), and paste. At least then you wouldn't have to waste the 20 minutes it took you to look up your words and such in the dictionary or thesauras.

As far as my mom... Enjoy... I dont like her much anyway...

Later.

p.s. 3 cheers for torture

You're the second person on IA to make the mistake of accusing me that I look up words in a dictionary or thesaurus.

Look, just because you don't know what they mean doesn't mean I don't.

I'm a diction whore, and I'm sorry if that makes you feel inadequate. There are people that go through life without a bare-ass minimum vocabulary.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, except for making a 'omg stfu' post on a thread after it's been going on without for 3 pages. Don't make the mistake of underestimating anyone else's intellect, and you'll get similar treatment.

[Elrichthain]

When FDR established welfare it was necessary for the times, and it helped fuel the economy and get us out of a depression. It was a wonderful thing. However, he established it as a temporary fix. I believe it still does a very good job in our society, but it definitely needs to be reformed, I will completely agree with that. Taking it away? No. I have it tends to HELP our economy more than hurt it. Yes, it does hurt the upper-middle to the upper classes, because they get (unfairly) taxed higher. However, I live with a woman who has two kids, and after her work went out of business unexpectedly, the compensation you so unwillingly delt helped her keep her kids. She did get back on her feet, and she's now managing a job in a Barnes & Noble cafe, and she hates the job, but she does it for her kids...to give them a chance she never had. She doesn't receive the help anymore, but without it would be without her two girls, and probably severly lack motivation.

The question is would you rather cancel the program because so many people abuse it and even breed people into a shitty life, and in so doing keeping people like my roommate unable to keep her kids, or would you rather help her out and give her kids a good life because she's TRYING, but in the meantime happen to encourage someone to take advantage. It NEEDS to be reformed, but it'd be too difficult to set a standard, or even make sure people meet the standards. I pray we find a good way to do so, it would save tons of money, but I would rather not cancel it completely in the meantime.

I agree with you about the gun thing. I think the laws can get ridiculuos, but should we have no way to control who gets a gun and who doesn't? You go to the extreme of insinuating we should have NO restrictions on buying guns. We need restrictions, for very obvious reasons. By the way, the Second Amendment, in context, is we have a right to bear arms for local militia, to preserve out natural rights. Tell me how many local militias you've come into contact with post-industrial revolution. I think we have the right to defend ourselves and our families--wouldn't deny anybody that right--but wouldn't you say we've kind of twisted the meaning of the Amendment?

By the way, we're always going to have guns: it's like drugs. There are too many people that will fight to keep it alive, so no democrat could be stupid enough to fight to elimiate guns in this country, just try to make sure it's going to the right people. So don't worry, you'll be able to keep your guns no matter who's running this country.

I'm not going to fight the gay marriage (because I've found it resides largely on your moral system, i.e. religion, and I take it your a hard core southern baptist based on the heat of your argument for being republican) except to say this: "marriage" is a religious institute, and should be determined by the religion of the person wanting to marry. What's being faught, essentially, are the privileges of a gay man or woman when being recognized by the government as "married" based on their institution of marriage. With that being the case, I believe the government SHOULD allow gay marriage, because it's not in their right (imo) to determine who is more worthy of marrying.

My last little is about your "if you don't like it, get out" attitude. This is a wonderful country, and we have a lot of great rights. However, we also have responsibilities, including fighting for our rights, as we feel we have. Believe me, if all the democrats left the country, you'd be miserable. You'd have nothing to fight, and more than likely our country would turn into a dictatorship or owned by corporations. Guess how many rights you'll have left then? As many that keeps them on top. So I'm sick of people saying "if you don't like it, leave." If we abolished guns, allowed gays to marry, and taxed the rich 70% or more of their earnings to help the homeless, would you move? Or would you fight to abolish it? We run on a pendulum, we go to extreme left and right, and we're sitting on extreme right. Don't get too upset or anything, but we're about to start swinging left, I could almost guarantee you.

[malfeas99]

When FDR established welfare it was necessary for the times, and it helped fuel the economy and get us out of a depression. It was a wonderful thing. However, he established it as a temporary fix. I believe it still does a very good job in our society, but it definitely needs to be reformed, I will completely agree with that. Taking it away? No. I have it tends to HELP our economy more than hurt it. Yes, it does hurt the upper-middle to the upper classes, because they get (unfairly) taxed higher. However, I live with a woman who has two kids, and after her work went out of business unexpectedly, the compensation you so unwillingly delt helped her keep her kids. She did get back on her feet, and she's now managing a job in a Barnes & Noble cafe, and she hates the job, but she does it for her kids...to give them a chance she never had. She doesn't receive the help anymore, but without it would be without her two girls, and probably severly lack motivation.

The question is would you rather cancel the program because so many people abuse it and even breed people into a shitty life, and in so doing keeping people like my roommate unable to keep her kids, or would you rather help her out and give her kids a good life because she's TRYING, but in the meantime happen to encourage someone to take advantage. It NEEDS to be reformed, but it'd be too difficult to set a standard, or even make sure people meet the standards. I pray we find a good way to do so, it would save tons of money, but I would rather not cancel it completely in the meantime.

I agree with you about the gun thing. I think the laws can get ridiculuos, but should we have no way to control who gets a gun and who doesn't? You go to the extreme of insinuating we should have NO restrictions on buying guns. We need restrictions, for very obvious reasons. By the way, the Second Amendment, in context, is we have a right to bear arms for local militia, to preserve out natural rights. Tell me how many local militias you've come into contact with post-industrial revolution. I think we have the right to defend ourselves and our families--wouldn't deny anybody that right--but wouldn't you say we've kind of twisted the meaning of the Amendment?

By the way, we're always going to have guns: it's like drugs. There are too many people that will fight to keep it alive, so no democrat could be stupid enough to fight to elimiate guns in this country, just try to make sure it's going to the right people. So don't worry, you'll be able to keep your guns no matter who's running this country.

I'm not going to fight the gay marriage (because I've found it resides largely on your moral system, i.e. religion, and I take it your a hard core southern baptist based on the heat of your argument for being republican) except to say this: "marriage" is a religious institute, and should be determined by the religion of the person wanting to marry. What's being faught, essentially, are the privileges of a gay man or woman when being recognized by the government as "married" based on their institution of marriage. With that being the case, I believe the government SHOULD allow gay marriage, because it's not in their right (imo) to determine who is more worthy of marrying.

My last little is about your "if you don't like it, get out" attitude. This is a wonderful country, and we have a lot of great rights. However, we also have responsibilities, including fighting for our rights, as we feel we have. Believe me, if all the democrats left the country, you'd be miserable. You'd have nothing to fight, and more than likely our country would turn into a dictatorship or owned by corporations. Guess how many rights you'll have left then? As many that keeps them on top. So I'm sick of people saying "if you don't like it, leave." If we abolished guns, allowed gays to marry, and taxed the rich 70% or more of their earnings to help the homeless, would you move? Or would you fight to abolish it? We run on a pendulum, we go to extreme left and right, and we're sitting on extreme right. Don't get too upset or anything, but we're about to start swinging left, I could almost guarantee you.

Just a couple of things I want to say, too lazy to truly argue atm, and you have a much more impressively realistic grasp of things than, say, jdmadatmypeniscuzitssmall or whoever.

1) You observe and note that welfare creates and sustains poverty, is wildly and widely abused, and fosters dependency on government. But you talk about welfare like it's the only way to help out that individual example you mentioned. How did a woman a few decades ago, when welfare wasn't even as close to comprehensive as it is now, handle that? She dealt with family, with friends, with the community, with her church, whatever. Private charities have the advantage of not only being far more efficient than any government program, but avoid having to take people's property by force and give it to others. You talk about supporting welfare like it makes you a caring, compassionate individual. What's compassionate about having other people's property taken from them to give to others? Forced altruism isn't altruism at all, it's compulsion, and it's government plunder.

2) This militia argument is tired, old, and I'm surprised you haven't been refuted on it yet. The 'militia', as defined at the time of the framing of the constitution, was ALL able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. Period. Not the 'national guard', not the 'state militia'. Given that' the case, I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment, in it's 'proper context' as you said, is designed to give every citizen the right to arm himself. What you say about gun regulation is true. I have no problem with regulation that keeps guns from getting into the hands of people that should not have them.. the mentally ill, felons, etc. The problem is, easily 99% of gun legislation that HAS been passed has done nothing to make it more difficult for anyone but law abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves, and incredibly often, has had no effect at ALL on a criminal's efforts to obtain one. Further, leglislation that has been passed up to this point has been lobbied and carried over by politicians and groups that have a STATED GOAL of removing private gun ownership rights, or constraining them as tightly as they possibly can.

P.S.: A lot of FDR's 'New Deal' government spending policies actually prolonged the Depression.

[MachNU]

Just a couple of things I want to say, too lazy to truly argue atm, and you have a much more impressively realistic grasp of things than, say, jdmadatmypeniscuzitssmall or whoever.

1) You observe and note that welfare creates and sustains poverty, is wildly and widely abused, and fosters dependency on government. But you talk about welfare like it's the only way to help out that individual example you mentioned. How did a woman a few decades ago, when welfare wasn't even as close to comprehensive as it is now, handle that? She dealt with family, with friends, with the community, with her church, whatever. Private charities have the advantage of not only being far more efficient than any government program, but avoid having to take people's property by force and give it to others. You talk about supporting welfare like it makes you a caring, compassionate individual. What's compassionate about having other people's property taken from them to give to others? Forced altruism isn't altruism at all, it's compulsion, and it's government plunder.

2) This militia argument is tired, old, and I'm surprised you haven't been refuted on it yet. The 'militia', as defined at the time of the framing of the constitution, was ALL able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. Period. Not the 'national guard', not the 'state militia'. Given that' the case, I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment, in it's 'proper context' as you said, is designed to give every citizen the right to arm himself. What you say about gun regulation is true. I have no problem with regulation that keeps guns from getting into the hands of people that should not have them.. the mentally ill, felons, etc. The problem is, easily 99% of gun legislation that HAS been passed has done nothing to make it more difficult for anyone but law abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves, and incredibly often, has had no effect at ALL on a criminal's efforts to obtain one. Further, leglislation that has been passed up to this point has been lobbied and carried over by politicians and groups that have a STATED GOAL of removing private gun ownership rights, or constraining them as tightly as they possibly can.

P.S.: A lot of FDR's 'New Deal' government spending policies actually prolonged the Depression.

1. = WOW i think you just contradicted yourself or i really didnt understand what you wrote. But unless you are saying that it is stupid for tax payers to pay for poeple who cant or wont find a job, then i agree. But if your saying you agree with welfare then your a dumbass! LOl but thats only if you agree with welfare.

2. = Agree

[malfeas99]

1. = WOW i think you just contradicted yourself or i really didnt understand what you wrote.

I'm gonna go with #2 on that one.

[Flamed03]

I'm gonna go with #2 on that one.

agreed. you dont have to be an english major to understand what you wrote.
and thanks for adding your view. i was getting tired of argueing.

[MachNU]

1. = WOW i think you just contradicted yourself or i really didnt understand what you wrote.

But unless you are saying that it is stupid for tax payers to pay for poeple who cant or wont find a job, then i agree.

2. But if your saying you agree with welfare then your a dumbass! LOl but thats only if you agree with welfare.

LOl it was a statement with a question. I was trying to shorten what he wrote in to one short and sweet statement to figur eout what he wrote.

[DrivenMind]

Unfortunately I don't follow politics.

Actually... I don't think I've ever even been to this section of the forum before.

Perhaps I'm ignorant for not paying more attention to the people who make important decisions regarding my freedoms, but truthfully from an outsiders perspective looking in everything in, and surrounding politics is far to opinionated to make a "correct" or accurate decision on political leadership in this country. I believe the people making up the media, are also biased in their presentation of "facts" and "truths". Not intentionally so, but because trying to make sense out of the enormous amount of information (accurate, close to accurate, or inaccurate) you hear on the radio, television and various other sources results in sensory overload.

From an outsiders standpoint I don't know who, or what to believe when it comes to politics.

From my perspective (a socially active youth and student) I get so many different opinions, and contrasting, though seemingly valid points that is seems stupid, almost futile to try and accurately decipher between the unbiased truth, and the opinionated bullshit... as they can both be equally appealing.