Religions > Atheism > SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Tom Willette" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2004 10:31:02 AM |
| Object: |
SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!!!!!!
By BRIAN BLOMQUIST
NY POST
February 28, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Democratic front-runner John Kerry
was rated the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate in an independent
survey yesterday - a distinction the Bush campaign will spread in
coming months.
The rating for Kerry comes at a bad time - just as he has nearly
clinched the Democratic primary contest - largely a battle for liberal
votes - and is beginning to look ahead to the general-election
campaign against President Bush, where moderate and independent voters
could make the difference.
Kerry was rated most liberal senator on the basis of his voting record
in Congress last year for abortion, against tax cuts, in favor of
spending and other issues, as scored by National Journal, a
distinguished independent policy journal.
"This proves the point that John Kerry's record matters, and John
Kerry has a lot of explaining to do about his voting record," said
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson.
Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said, "The rating speaks for
itself."
The National Journal put Kerry well to the left of the other
Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, a liberal stalwart
for decades. Kennedy came in 11th place in the "most liberal"
category.
Kerry will be hard-pressed to make the claim that last year's rating
was a complete aberration.
Elected to the Senate in 1984, Kerry scored among the most liberal
senators in 1986, 1988 and 1990, but in his second term, he cast a
more moderate voting record.
In 2002, he was rated the ninth most liberal senator, and the year
before, he was ranked the 12th most liberal senator.
On social issues, Kerry did not vote with conservatives once out of
138 votes scored by the National Journal.
"Anyone who knows John Kerry knows that this label doesn't fit," Kerry
campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said.
"He's a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, a former prosecutor and a
deficit hawk that's opposed his party and voted to shrink the
deficit."
In rating senators' votes in 2003, the National Journal looked at 62
votes in the Senate and 73 votes in the House. Kerry, who campaigned
much of last year, was absent for 37 of those votes.
But he was there for some of the key votes, including to fight against
money for Iraq, the budget and tax cuts, and the prescription-drug
benefit. He voted against all three.
.
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
16 Aug 2004 04:41:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:31:02 GMT, Tom Willette
<tomwillette@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote:
February 28, 2004 --
A little behind the times, aren't we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
17 Aug 2004 07:28:40 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:poa2i0pg0qik0n55adgn1onl292cpck6v8@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:31:02 GMT, Tom Willette
<tomwillette@N0SPAM.C0M> wrote:
February 28, 2004 --
A little behind the times, aren't we?
Is there a statute of limitations on the truth now? Oh I forgot, it's okay
to make a big deal o f Bush's military records 30 years ago but not okay for
an article that's only six months old.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
17 Aug 2004 09:18:46 AM |
|
|
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote
Is there a statute of limitations on the truth now?
It wasn't true even back then.
For example, voting against unfunded, fiscally irresponsable
tax give-aways was *Never* "liberal."
Voting for unfunded, fiscally irresponsable tax give-aways
was *Never* "conservative."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
18 Aug 2004 06:44:07 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cpWdnW6Qc7bvj7_cRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote
Is there a statute of limitations on the truth now?
It wasn't true even back then.
For example, voting against unfunded, fiscally irresponsable
tax give-aways was *Never* "liberal."
Voting for unfunded, fiscally irresponsable tax give-aways
was *Never* "conservative."
I'm not sure how this relates to my post since I was commenting on the
previous posters remarks that a document six months old was behind the times
yet the Democrats attack on Bush's Vietnam service 30 years ago was.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
19 Aug 2004 08:27:11 AM |
|
|
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote
Is there a statute of limitations on the truth now?
It wasn't true even back then.
For example, voting against unfunded, fiscally irresponsable
tax give-aways was *Never* "liberal."
Voting for unfunded, fiscally irresponsable tax give-aways
was *Never* "conservative."
I'm not sure how this relates to my post since I was commenting
on the previous posters remarks that a document six months old
was behind the times yet the Democrats attack on Bush's Vietnam
service 30 years ago was.
Bush is a draft-dodger-turned-deserter and the "six months old"
story was a lie.
Even accepting Bush at his word -- taking his "evidence" at face
value -- there is an unaccounted for gap in his service... plus part
of his "accounted for" service taking place at the wrong unit, at a
time when his commander said (in writing) that he wasn't there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 08:36:02 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xNKdnSKkTP3GNLncRVn-sw@comcast.com...
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote
Is there a statute of limitations on the truth now?
It wasn't true even back then.
For example, voting against unfunded, fiscally irresponsable
tax give-aways was *Never* "liberal."
Voting for unfunded, fiscally irresponsable tax give-aways
was *Never* "conservative."
I'm not sure how this relates to my post since I was commenting
on the previous posters remarks that a document six months old
was behind the times yet the Democrats attack on Bush's Vietnam
service 30 years ago was.
Bush is a draft-dodger-turned-deserter and the "six months old"
story was a lie.
Only in your mind comrade.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Marxist Moore" |
|
| Title: TERESA HEINZ KERRY ADMITS TO LESBIAN FANTASIES!!!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!! |
19 Aug 2004 11:12:21 AM |
|
|
TERESA HEINZ KERRY ADMITS TO LESBIAN FANTASIES!!!!!!! LIBERALS HATE
AMERICA!!!
BOSTON (AP)- ``Mama T'' took the stage Wednesday.
A night after giving a sedate speech to the Democratic National
Convention, Teresa Heinz Kerry was treated like a rock star at the gay
and lesbian caucus, where she told the packed room that ``at least, if
nothing else, you will have a mom in the White House.''
``You can call me Mama T,'' Heinz Kerry said. And the crowd took her
up on her offer.
Heinz Kerry never mentioned gay marriage during her 10-minute speech,
but she said that ``we have to make sure that those of you parents ...
have the same room to maneuver, the same rights to share, the same
respect to offer.''
Heinz Kerry, who was joined by her two younger sons, Chris and Andre,
said she would greet news that one of her children - or her husband's
children - was gay ``in the same way that I would if my son said 'I'm
marrying this wonderful girl.'''
``What we owe one another is respect, dignity, civil rights and the
generosity of spirit that has always been a great American trait,''
said Heinz Kerry, 65, earning herself a standing ovation. ``You are
pushing the envelope in the sense that it's a new time and a new day
and we have as a country to respond with policies and with cultural
acceptance.''
John Kerry is against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions,
which accord all the rights and benefits of marriage.
The day after addressing the convention, the notoriously candid Heinz
Kerry talked to several groups, telling the Asian American caucus
about the importance of parenthood.
``But I needn't say that to Asian Americans,'' Heinz Kerry said.
``They are outstanding parents. But there are people in this country
who need help.''
But the warmest reception came from the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and
Transgendered Caucus, where Boston activist Mary Breslauer introduced
Heinz Kerry by saying, ``Did she not look really hot last night?''
Associated Press Writers Jennifer Peter, Sam Hananel, Jay Lindsay and
Douglass K. Daniel contributed to this report.
--------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
18 Aug 2004 05:52:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
19 Aug 2004 05:43:39 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is the top
95%.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ExMachina" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
19 Aug 2004 11:52:13 AM |
|
|
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vv%Uc.15021$Zh3.1332@trndny02>...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is the top
95%.
Since when are SAT scores used to determine IQ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 08:25:36 AM |
|
|
"ExMachina" <jjjeffy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd0d5a35.0408190852.706890ff@posting.google.com...
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<vv%Uc.15021$Zh3.1332@trndny02>...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly
nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is the
top
95%.
Since when are SAT scores used to determine IQ?
Do you really need to be told how this is done?
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
19 Aug 2004 01:11:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:43:39 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is the top
95%.
Considering that not even the University of Texas would accept him
(probably because of low SAT scores), I suspect your statement isn't
accurate.
At any rate he's done a lot of drinking since then, having been and
probably still is an alcoholic, I suspect he's killed off a lot of
those brain cells.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 08:34:06 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4130eb6a.325553578@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:43:39 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly
nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is the
top
95%.
Considering that not even the University of Texas would accept him
(probably because of low SAT scores), I suspect your statement isn't
accurate.
At any rate he's done a lot of drinking since then, having been and
probably still is an alcoholic, I suspect he's killed off a lot of
those brain cells.
Here you go. I was off a little on his IQ but it still isn't bad.
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "acetyl" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 09:06:44 AM |
|
|
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i5nVc.44539$SC1.40236@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4130eb6a.325553578@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:43:39 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would
still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly
nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a
major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is
the
top
95%.
Considering that not even the University of Texas would accept him
(probably because of low SAT scores), I suspect your statement isn't
accurate.
At any rate he's done a lot of drinking since then, having been and
probably still is an alcoholic, I suspect he's killed off a lot of
those brain cells.
Here you go. I was off a little on his IQ but it still isn't bad.
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm
well put. i also like the SAT/IQ formula, since my SAT was much higher than
Bush's (or Gore's) :)
therefore, it MUST be accurate :)
whit
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its
just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 08:14:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:34:06 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4130eb6a.325553578@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:43:39 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly
nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is the
top
95%.
Considering that not even the University of Texas would accept him
(probably because of low SAT scores), I suspect your statement isn't
accurate.
At any rate he's done a lot of drinking since then, having been and
probably still is an alcoholic, I suspect he's killed off a lot of
those brain cells.
Here you go. I was off a little on his IQ but it still isn't bad.
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm
First off, this is published by a Christian College. Not exactly
something that inspires confidence in it's truth in Alt.Atheist.
Secondly, you can study for a SAT test, you cannot for an IQ test.
You can also buy the answers or have someone else take it for you.
But I'll grant you that Bush is probably at least above average in
intellegence. He just apparently sees no reason to use it. He's
being judged on his actions, not his potential.
and his actions are repeatedly predictable stupid and irresponsible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 08:42:21 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:413c9fad.437122421@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:34:06 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4130eb6a.325553578@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:43:39 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would
still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly
nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly
cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a
major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is
the
top
95%.
Considering that not even the University of Texas would accept him
(probably because of low SAT scores), I suspect your statement isn't
accurate.
At any rate he's done a lot of drinking since then, having been and
probably still is an alcoholic, I suspect he's killed off a lot of
those brain cells.
Here you go. I was off a little on his IQ but it still isn't bad.
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm
First off, this is published by a Christian College. Not exactly
something that inspires confidence in it's truth in Alt.Atheist.
You think the college just came up with this out of the blue because why?
Secondly, you can study for a SAT test, you cannot for an IQ test.
You can also buy the answers or have someone else take it for you.
If Bush is as stupid as you keep saying he is, studying would get him
nowhere. And who in their right mind wouldn't study for a SAT? Would you
study? I sure would.
But I'll grant you that Bush is probably at least above average in
intellegence. He just apparently sees no reason to use it. He's
being judged on his actions, not his potential.
and his actions are repeatedly predictable stupid and irresponsible.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vinpo" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
20 Aug 2004 08:21:00 PM |
|
|
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:413c9fad.437122421@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:34:06 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4130eb6a.325553578@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:43:39 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would
still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly
nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly
cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a
major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is
the
top
95%.
Considering that not even the University of Texas would accept him
(probably because of low SAT scores), I suspect your statement isn't
accurate.
At any rate he's done a lot of drinking since then, having been and
probably still is an alcoholic, I suspect he's killed off a lot of
those brain cells.
Here you go. I was off a little on his IQ but it still isn't bad.
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm
First off, this is published by a Christian College. Not exactly
something that inspires confidence in it's truth in Alt.Atheist.
Secondly, you can study for a SAT test, you cannot for an IQ test.
to some extent you can. you can certainly hone up on certain skills.
IQ is more closely related to G than SAT is, but SAT is SUPPOSEDLY an
"aptitude" test, just like the IQ is, not an acquired knowledge test (which
is what the Ach Tests are, now called SAT-II iirc)
that is why SAT is ***correlated*** with IQ at about .8 or so. it's not an
exact across the board proxy, but it's a reasonable estimator.
You can also buy the answers or have someone else take it for you.
But I'll grant you that Bush is probably at least above average in
intellegence.
that is honest of you.
i certainly agree that he is probably less intelligent than clinton, nixon,
or carter
i also agree that carter was a horrendous president, yet very very
intelligent.
SAT is a much better proxy for IQ than IQ is for being a good president.
one should have an IQ above average, to be president. but the idea that
intellectuals or high IQ people make BETTER presidents is very suspect imo
He just apparently sees no reason to use it. He's
being judged on his actions, not his potential.
and his actions are repeatedly predictable stupid and irresponsible.
well, that i disagree with, but other than that, good post. :l
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 12:08:17 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:21:00 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:413c9fad.437122421@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:34:06 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4130eb6a.325553578@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:43:39 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would
still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly
nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly
cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a
major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which is
the
top
95%.
Considering that not even the University of Texas would accept him
(probably because of low SAT scores), I suspect your statement isn't
accurate.
At any rate he's done a lot of drinking since then, having been and
probably still is an alcoholic, I suspect he's killed off a lot of
those brain cells.
Here you go. I was off a little on his IQ but it still isn't bad.
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm
First off, this is published by a Christian College. Not exactly
something that inspires confidence in it's truth in Alt.Atheist.
Secondly, you can study for a SAT test, you cannot for an IQ test.
to some extent you can. you can certainly hone up on certain skills.
IQ is more closely related to G than SAT is, but SAT is SUPPOSEDLY an
"aptitude" test, just like the IQ is, not an acquired knowledge test (which
is what the Ach Tests are, now called SAT-II iirc)
that is why SAT is ***correlated*** with IQ at about .8 or so. it's not an
exact across the board proxy, but it's a reasonable estimator.
You can also buy the answers or have someone else take it for you.
But I'll grant you that Bush is probably at least above average in
intellegence.
that is honest of you.
i certainly agree that he is probably less intelligent than clinton, nixon,
or carter
i also agree that carter was a horrendous president, yet very very
intelligent.
I never said that. I consider Carter to be a very good president.
Reagan was pretty bad and did some serious damage to the country.
Dubya is far far worse. Bush I was OK.
SAT is a much better proxy for IQ than IQ is for being a good president.
one should have an IQ above average, to be president. but the idea that
intellectuals or high IQ people make BETTER presidents is very suspect imo
Most democratic presidents were far more intellegent and democratic
administrations have historically have been far better for the
country, in terms of jobs, deficit, civil rights and diplomacy. It's
pretty obvious that the current crop of republicans led by Gingrich
pick less than sharp individuals to run as figureheads. Dan Quale and
Dubya were not picked to lead but to be manipulated. I don't consider
the current set of republicans conservatives.
He just apparently sees no reason to use it. He's
being judged on his actions, not his potential.
and his actions are repeatedly predictable stupid and irresponsible.
well, that i disagree with, but other than that, good post. :l
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 08:52:14 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:413ed378.450381296@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:21:00 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:413c9fad.437122421@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:34:06 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
IQ is more closely related to G than SAT is, but SAT is SUPPOSEDLY an
"aptitude" test, just like the IQ is, not an acquired knowledge test
(which
is what the Ach Tests are, now called SAT-II iirc)
that is why SAT is ***correlated*** with IQ at about .8 or so. it's not
an
exact across the board proxy, but it's a reasonable estimator.
You can also buy the answers or have someone else take it for you.
But I'll grant you that Bush is probably at least above average in
intellegence.
that is honest of you.
i certainly agree that he is probably less intelligent than clinton,
nixon,
or carter
i also agree that carter was a horrendous president, yet very very
intelligent.
I never said that. I consider Carter to be a very good president.
Reagan was pretty bad and did some serious damage to the country.
Dubya is far far worse. Bush I was OK.
What did Carter to to make him a very good president when nearly every
historian considers his regime one of the worst? LOL, Reagan was responsible
for the fall of communism. He rebuilt our military back up and made it
respectable again only to have Clinton dismantle it. His economic policies,,
which Bush followed, lead us out of the recession. Even Clinton recognizes
that. Under Reagan we had the most prosperous times in American history. We
became the world leaders in research and technology. Yes, I can see how he
did serious damage.
SAT is a much better proxy for IQ than IQ is for being a good president.
one should have an IQ above average, to be president. but the idea that
intellectuals or high IQ people make BETTER presidents is very suspect
imo
Most democratic presidents were far more intellegent and democratic
administrations have historically have been far better for the
country, in terms of jobs, deficit, civil rights and diplomacy. It's
pretty obvious that the current crop of republicans led by Gingrich
pick less than sharp individuals to run as figureheads. Dan Quale and
Dubya were not picked to lead but to be manipulated. I don't consider
the current set of republicans conservatives.
Then why since the inception of the Republican party under Lincoln have the
vast majority of presidents been Republicans? What about Gore? Was the
inventor of the internet picked to be a leader? Or Edwards? I'm sure he
wasn't chosen to try and garner the southern vote. He was chosen for his
proven leadership capabilities. Rriigghhtt...
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 05:21:26 AM |
|
|
In article <isIVc.10004$3O2.2576@trndny07>,
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:413ed378.450381296@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:21:00 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:413c9fad.437122421@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:34:06 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
IQ is more closely related to G than SAT is, but SAT is SUPPOSEDLY an
"aptitude" test, just like the IQ is, not an acquired knowledge test
(which
is what the Ach Tests are, now called SAT-II iirc)
that is why SAT is ***correlated*** with IQ at about .8 or so. it's not
an
exact across the board proxy, but it's a reasonable estimator.
You can also buy the answers or have someone else take it for you.
But I'll grant you that Bush is probably at least above average in
intellegence.
that is honest of you.
i certainly agree that he is probably less intelligent than clinton,
nixon,
or carter
i also agree that carter was a horrendous president, yet very very
intelligent.
I never said that. I consider Carter to be a very good president.
Reagan was pretty bad and did some serious damage to the country.
Dubya is far far worse. Bush I was OK.
What did Carter to to make him a very good president when nearly every
historian considers his regime one of the worst? LOL, Reagan was responsible
for the fall of communism.
LOL is right. Nobody except hard-core Republicans claim this with a straight
face.
He rebuilt our military back up and made it
respectable again only
Actually the military buildup began under Carter.
to have Clinton dismantle it.
Actually the cutbacks began under Bush 41. And the Clinton military didn't
have much trouble in Afgahnistan or Iraq, did it?
His economic policies,,
which Bush followed, lead us out of the recession.
And tripled the national debt. If you give me a credit card and tell me I
never have to pay back what I borrow, I can live well too!
Even Clinton recognizes
that. Under Reagan we had the most prosperous times in American history.
Wrong. The greatest prosperity in history, in terms of stock market, jobs
created, real wages, growth in GDP -- all under Clinton.
We
became the world leaders in research and technology. Yes, I can see how he
did serious damage.
Yeah, because all that stuff about the atomic bomb, computer, transistor,
integrated circuit, space program -- all that came under Reagan.
SAT is a much better proxy for IQ than IQ is for being a good president.
one should have an IQ above average, to be president. but the idea that
intellectuals or high IQ people make BETTER presidents is very suspect
imo
Most democratic presidents were far more intellegent and democratic
administrations have historically have been far better for the
country, in terms of jobs, deficit, civil rights and diplomacy. It's
pretty obvious that the current crop of republicans led by Gingrich
pick less than sharp individuals to run as figureheads. Dan Quale and
Dubya were not picked to lead but to be manipulated. I don't consider
the current set of republicans conservatives.
Then why since the inception of the Republican party under Lincoln have the
vast majority of presidents been Republicans?
I doubt that.
What about Gore? Was the
inventor of the internet picked to be a leader?
He never claimed that. Go to snopes.com.
Or Edwards? I'm sure he
wasn't chosen to try and garner the southern vote. He was chosen for his
proven leadership capabilities. Rriigghhtt...
Dan Quayle? Spiro Agnew? Gerald Ford?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 08:25:03 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:cg7ln5$n1l$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <isIVc.10004$3O2.2576@trndny07>,
"Phil Trevorrow" <philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
What did Carter to to make him a very good president when nearly every
historian considers his regime one of the worst? LOL, Reagan was
responsible
for the fall of communism.
LOL is right. Nobody except hard-core Republicans claim this with a
straight
face.
Why did the Soviet union collapse then? Because they had to spend more money
on their military to keep pace with the American military build-up under
Reagan then they could on their economy. That's what caused the collapse.
He rebuilt our military back up and made it
respectable again only
Actually the military buildup began under Carter.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1777/poly/rrcoldwr.html
to have Clinton dismantle it.
Actually the cutbacks began under Bush 41. And the Clinton military
didn't
have much trouble in Afgahnistan or Iraq, did it?
http://www.earstohear.net/military.html
His economic policies,,
which Bush followed, lead us out of the recession.
And tripled the national debt. If you give me a credit card and tell me I
never have to pay back what I borrow, I can live well too!
Even Clinton recognizes
that. Under Reagan we had the most prosperous times in American history.
Wrong. The greatest prosperity in history, in terms of stock market, jobs
created, real wages, growth in GDP -- all under Clinton.
http://russp.org/taxcuts.html
We
became the world leaders in research and technology. Yes, I can see how
he
did serious damage.
Yeah, because all that stuff about the atomic bomb, computer, transistor,
integrated circuit, space program -- all that came under Reagan.
SAT is a much better proxy for IQ than IQ is for being a good
president.
one should have an IQ above average, to be president. but the idea
that
intellectuals or high IQ people make BETTER presidents is very suspect
imo
Most democratic presidents were far more intellegent and democratic
administrations have historically have been far better for the
country, in terms of jobs, deficit, civil rights and diplomacy. It's
pretty obvious that the current crop of republicans led by Gingrich
pick less than sharp individuals to run as figureheads. Dan Quale and
Dubya were not picked to lead but to be manipulated. I don't consider
the current set of republicans conservatives.
Then why since the inception of the Republican party under Lincoln have
the
vast majority of presidents been Republicans?
I doubt that.
You do eh? Let me give you a little help then.
Abraham Lincol 1861-65 Republican
Andrew Johnson 1865-69 Democrat
Ulysses S. Grant 1869-77 Republican
Rutherford B. Hayes 1877-81 Republican
James Garfield 1881 Republican
Chester Arthur 1881-85 Republican
Grover Cleveland 1885-89 Democrat
Benjamin Harrison 1889-93 Republican
Grover cleveland 1893-97 Democrat
William McKinley 1897-1901 Republican
Theodore Roosevelt 1901-09 Republican
William H. Taft 1909-13 Republican
Woodrow Wilson 1913-21 Democrat
Warren Harding 1921-23 Republican
Calvin Coolidge 1923-29 Republican
Herbert Hoover 1929-33 Republican
Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933-45
Harry Truman 1945-53 Democrat
Dwight Eisenhower 1953-61 Republican
John F. Kennedy 1961-63 Democrat
Lyndon Johnson 1963-69 Democrat
Richard Nixon 1969-74 Republican
Gerald Ford 1974-77 Republican
Jimmy Carter 1977-81 Democrat
Ronald Reagan 1981-89 Republican
George H.W. Bush 1989-93 Republican
William J. Clinton 1993-2001 Democrat
George W. Bush 2001-Present Republican
Republican Presidents: 18
Democratic Presidents: 10 Only 7 of which were elected
What about Gore? Was the
inventor of the internet picked to be a leader?
He never claimed that. Go to snopes.com.
Or Edwards? I'm sure he
wasn't chosen to try and garner the southern vote. He was chosen for his
proven leadership capabilities. Rriigghhtt...
Dan Quayle? Spiro Agnew? Gerald Ford?
Doesn't matter. The quote I replied to was: "It's pretty obvious that the
current crop of republicans led by Gingrich pick less than sharp individuals
to run as figureheads. Dan Quale and Dubya were not picked to lead but to be
manipulated." I was simply pointing out that both parties do the exact same
thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 01:00:41 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:52:14 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
What did Carter to to make him a very good president
Broker the only successful peace agreement in Middle East history?
when nearly every
historian considers his regime one of the worst? LOL,
LOL back atcha. Citations?
Reagan was responsible
for the fall of communism.
Absolute rubbish. The Soviet Union was going to collapse under the
weight of its own inefficiency regardless of who was in the White
House, and if you want to give anyone credit for accelerating it, Pope
John Paul II, Lech Walesa, and Mikhail Gorbachev deserve a lot more
credit than Reagan.
He rebuilt our military back up and made it
respectable again only to have Clinton dismantle it.
Clinton's military did pretty well in Bush's invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq... (Here's where you tell me "***** You", like Paul Wolfowitz
did when Al Franken pointed that out to him).
His economic policies,,
which Bush followed, lead us out of the recession.
His economic policies, (cut taxes on the wealthy while spending like a
drunken sailor on the military and slashing social programs) which
Bush more or less followed, led to the worst deficits and highest
national debt in the history of the world, which it fell to Bill
Clinton to fix.
Even Clinton recognizes
that. Under Reagan we had the most prosperous times in American history.
LOL! You should go to work as a commentator for FAUX News. By *EVERY*
standard, we had the most prosperous times under Clinton, not Reagan,
and Clinton reversed Reagan/Bush's disastrously irresponsible fiscal
policies in the process, only to see everything undone by the current
idiot in the White House.
We
became the world leaders in research and technology.
We've been that since Thomas Edison. I fail to see how Reagan can take
credit for that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
22 Aug 2004 08:33:16 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ac3fi09o6ic9vhi3h2e23asnn7qslqvouo@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:52:14 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
What did Carter to to make him a very good president
Broker the only successful peace agreement in Middle East history?
What peace would that be? The peace that lasted a whole week? Seems like
they're still killing each other over there. So much for the grand peace
plan.
when nearly every
historian considers his regime one of the worst? LOL,
LOL back atcha. Citations?
Try reading.
Reagan was responsible
for the fall of communism.
Absolute rubbish. The Soviet Union was going to collapse under the
weight of its own inefficiency regardless of who was in the White
House, and if you want to give anyone credit for accelerating it, Pope
John Paul II, Lech Walesa, and Mikhail Gorbachev deserve a lot more
credit than Reagan.
Absolute rubbish. The Soviet union's own doctrine was to spend any amounts
of money to keep it's military superior to the west. Reagan realized this
and started a massive military build-up that bankrupted the Soviet Union
causing it to collapse.
He rebuilt our military back up and made it
respectable again only to have Clinton dismantle it.
Clinton's military did pretty well in Bush's invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq... (Here's where you tell me "***** You", like Paul Wolfowitz
did when Al Franken pointed that out to him).
Nah, I generally try not to resort to vulgarity and name calling. If the
military was doing so well then why is it the reserves there don't have body
armor, adequate training, or armored vehicles that would protect them
against the roadside bombings? Answer, because the military doesn't have
enough money thanks to the massive cutbacks under Clinton. Why is it the
reserves are there at all? Answer, we don't have enough regular units
available thaqnks to the Clinton dismantling of the military.
His economic policies,,
which Bush followed, lead us out of the recession.
His economic policies, (cut taxes on the wealthy while spending like a
drunken sailor on the military and slashing social programs) which
Bush more or less followed, led to the worst deficits and highest
national debt in the history of the world, which it fell to Bill
Clinton to fix.
http://russp.org/taxcuts.html
Even Clinton recognizes
that. Under Reagan we had the most prosperous times in American history.
LOL! You should go to work as a commentator for FAUX News. By *EVERY*
standard, we had the most prosperous times under Clinton, not Reagan,
and Clinton reversed Reagan/Bush's disastrously irresponsible fiscal
policies in the process, only to see everything undone by the current
idiot in the White House.
http://russp.org/taxcuts.html Same site but pertinamt to your ridiculous
comments.
We
became the world leaders in research and technology.
We've been that since Thomas Edison. I fail to see how Reagan can take
credit for that.
Try reading.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "vinpo" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 12:20:01 AM |
|
|
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:413ed378.450381296@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 01:21:00 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:413c9fad.437122421@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:34:06 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4130eb6a.325553578@news-west.newscene.com...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:43:39 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:jkn7i0932hc1rbu5iogabdih61itd5do8a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:07 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans
dumb,
they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would
still
have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly
nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly
cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
Unfortunately for Coulter, and the US, she's right for the wrong
reasons: yes, calling Repuglicans, especially Shrub, "dumb" is a
major
arrow in the Liberal quiver, but she might want to consider that
the
reason for that might be that it's true...
Except it isn't. His SAT scores place him with an IQ of 125 which
is
the
top
95%.
Considering that not even the University of Texas would accept him
(probably because of low SAT scores), I suspect your statement isn't
accurate.
At any rate he's done a lot of drinking since then, having been and
probably still is an alcoholic, I suspect he's killed off a lot of
those brain cells.
Here you go. I was off a little on his IQ but it still isn't bad.
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm
First off, this is published by a Christian College. Not exactly
something that inspires confidence in it's truth in Alt.Atheist.
Secondly, you can study for a SAT test, you cannot for an IQ test.
to some extent you can. you can certainly hone up on certain skills.
IQ is more closely related to G than SAT is, but SAT is SUPPOSEDLY an
"aptitude" test, just like the IQ is, not an acquired knowledge test
(which
is what the Ach Tests are, now called SAT-II iirc)
that is why SAT is ***correlated*** with IQ at about .8 or so. it's not
an
exact across the board proxy, but it's a reasonable estimator.
You can also buy the answers or have someone else take it for you.
But I'll grant you that Bush is probably at least above average in
intellegence.
that is honest of you.
i certainly agree that he is probably less intelligent than clinton,
nixon,
or carter
i also agree that carter was a horrendous president, yet very very
intelligent.
I never said that. I consider Carter to be a very good president.
i'm not even going to go there. but i think he was bad.
or maybe that IS going there.
Reagan was pretty bad and did some serious damage to the country.
Dubya is far far worse. Bush I was OK.
i thought reagan was good. bush I was ok. the jury's still out on dubya.
it's a mixed bag. history will tell
SAT is a much better proxy for IQ than IQ is for being a good president.
one should have an IQ above average, to be president. but the idea that
intellectuals or high IQ people make BETTER presidents is very suspect
imo
Most democratic presidents were far more intellegent
that may or may not be true. i haven't compared the iq's of dem's vs.
repubs.
and democratic
administrations have historically have been far better for the
country, in terms of jobs, deficit, civil rights and diplomacy.
i disagree. especially in regards to civil rights. but it's totally
tangential
It's
pretty obvious that the current crop of republicans led by Gingrich
pick less than sharp individuals to run as figureheads. Dan Quale and
Dubya were not picked to lead but to be manipulated. I don't consider
the current set of republicans conservatives.
a vice president (quayle) is NEVER picked to LEAD.
look at gore. :l
whit
He just apparently sees no reason to use it. He's
being judged on his actions, not his potential.
and his actions are repeatedly predictable stupid and irresponsible.
well, that i disagree with, but other than that, good post. :l
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 05:33:08 AM |
|
|
In article <5YAVc.29225$9Y6.20920@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
and democratic
administrations have historically have been far better for the
country, in terms of jobs, deficit, civil rights and diplomacy.
i disagree. especially in regards to civil rights. but it's totally
tangential
Huh? Are you on drugs? Nixon was better for civil rights than Kennedy or
Johnson?
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 12:38:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Aug 04 10:33:08 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
In article <5YAVc.29225$9Y6.20920@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
and democratic
administrations have historically have been far better for the
country, in terms of jobs, deficit, civil rights and diplomacy.
i disagree. especially in regards to civil rights. but it's totally
tangential
Huh? Are you on drugs? Nixon was better for civil rights than Kennedy or
Johnson?
Based on what?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 04:03:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:20:01 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
i thought reagan was good.
The nurse will be along with your meds any moment...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Trevorrow" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 08:53:33 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:a74ei0hk54olf3rj7lr8lk3372o4mffo7e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:20:01 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
i thought reagan was good.
The nurse will be along with your meds any moment...
Closely followed by a nurse with yours.
--
"The trouble with our liberal friends isn't that they're ignorant; its just
that they know so much that isn't so". - Ronald Reagan
"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they
would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have
"racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced
arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple
them." - Ann Coulter
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: SURVEY: KERRY A FLAMING LIBERAL!!!!! LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!! |
21 Aug 2004 12:38:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:53:33 GMT, "Phil Trevorrow"
<philtrev@hotmail.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:a74ei0hk54olf3rj7lr8lk3372o4mffo7e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:20:01 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
i thought reagan was good.
The nurse will be along with your meds any moment...
Closely followed by a nurse with yours.
Courtesy of Sean C:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060704A.shtml
"The truth is straightforward: Virtually every significant problem
facing the American people today can be traced back to the policies
and
people that came from the Reagan administration. It is a laundry list
of ills, woes and disasters that has all of us, once again, staring
apocalypse in the eye."
Sean C
Ronald Reagan is dead now, and everyone is being nice to him. In every
aspect, this is appropriate. He was a husband and a father, a beloved
member of a family, and he will be missed by those he was close to.
His
death was long, slow and agonizing because of the Alzheimer's Disease
which ruined him, one drop of lucidity at a time. My grandmother died
ten years ago almost to the day because of this disease, and this
disease took ten years to do its dirty, filthy, wretched work on her.
The dignity and candor of Reagan's farewell letter to the American
people was as magnificent a departure from public life as any that has
been seen in our history, but the ugly truth of his illness was that
he
lived on, and on, and on. His family and friends watched as he faded
from the world of the real, as the simple dignity afforded to all life
collapsed like loose sand behind his ever more vacant eyes. Only those
who have seen Alzheimer's Disease invade a mind can know the truth of
this. It is a cursed way to die.
In this mourning space, however, there must be room made for the
truth.
Writer Edward Abbey once said, "The sneakiest form of literary
subtlety, in a corrupt society, is to speak the plain truth. The
critics will not understand you; the public will not believe you; your
fellow writers will shake their heads."
The truth is straightforward: Virtually every significant problem
facing the American people today can be traced back to the policies
and
people that came from the Reagan administration. It is a laundry list
of ills, woes and disasters that has all of us, once again, staring
apocalypse in the eye.
How can this be? The television says Ronald Reagan was one of the most
beloved Presidents of the 20th century. He won two national elections,
the second by a margin so overwhelming that all future landslides will
be judged by the high-water mark he achieved against Walter Mondale.
How can a man so universally respected have played a hand in the evils
which corrupt our days?
The answer lies in the reality of the corrupt society Abbey spoke of.
Our corruption is the absolute triumph of image over reality, of flash
over substance, of the pervasive need within most Americans to believe
in a happy-face version of the nation they call home, and to spurn the
reality of our estate as unpatriotic. Ronald Reagan was, and will
always be, the undisputed heavyweight champion of salesmen in this
regard.
Reagan was able, by virtue of his towering talents in this arena, to
sell to the American people a flood of poisonous policies. He made
Americans feel good about acting against their own best interests. He
sold the American people a lemon, and they drive it to this day as if
it was a Cadillac. It isn't the lies that kill us, but the myths, and
Ronald Reagan was the greatest myth-maker we are ever likely to see.
Mainstream media journalism today is a shameful joke because of
Reagan's deregulation policies. Once upon a time, the Fairness
Doctrine
ensured that the information we receive - information vital to the
ability of the people to govern in the manner intended - came from a
wide variety of sources and perspectives. Reagan's policies
annihilated
the Fairness Doctrine, opening the door for a few mega-corporations to
gather journalism unto themselves. Today, Reagan's old bosses at
General Electric own three of the most-watched news channels. This
company profits from every war we fight, but somehow is trusted to
tell
the truths of war. Thus, the myths are sold to us.
The deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan did not just deliver
journalism to these massive corporations, but handed virtually every
facet of our lives into the hands of this privileged few. The air we
breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat are all tainted because
Reagan battered down every environmental regulation he came across so
corporations could improve their bottom line. Our leaders are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporations that were made
all-powerful by Reagan's deregulation craze. The Savings and Loan
scandal of Reagan's time, which cost the American people hundreds of
billions of dollars, is but one example of Reagan's decision that the
foxes would be fine guards in the henhouse.
Ronald Reagan believed in small government, despite the fact that he
grew government massively during his time. Social programs which
protected the weakest of our citizens were gutted by Reagan's
policies,
delivering millions into despair. Reagan was able to do this by
caricaturing the "welfare queen," who punched out babies by the
barnload, who drove the flashy car bought with your tax dollars, who
refused to work because she didn't have to. This was a vicious, racist
lie, one result of which was the decimation of a generation by crack
cocaine. The urban poor were left to rot because Ronald Reagan
believed
in 'self-sufficiency.'
Because Ronald Reagan could not be bothered to fund research into 'gay
cancer,' the AIDS virus was allowed to carve out a comfortable home in
America. The aftershocks from this callous disregard for people whose
homosexuality was deemed evil by religious conservatives cannot be
overstated. Beyond the graves of those who died from a disease which
was allowed to burn unchecked, there are generations of Americans
today
living with the subconscious idea that sex equals death.
The veneer of honor and respect painted across the legacy of Ronald
Reagan is itself a myth of biblical proportions. The coverage
proffered
today of the Reagan legacy seldom mentions impropriety until the
Iran/Contra scandal appears on the administration timeline. This sin
of
omission is vast. By the end of his term in office, some 138 Reagan
administration officials had been convicted, indicted or investigated
for misconduct and/or criminal activities.
Some of the names on this disgraceful roll-call: Oliver North, John
Poindexter, Richard Secord, Casper Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert
C. McFarlane, Michael Deaver, E. Bob Wallach, James Watt, Alan D.
Fiers, Clair George, Duane R. Clarridge, Anne Gorscuh Burford, Rita
Lavelle, Richard Allen, Richard Beggs, Guy Flake, Louis Glutfrida,
Edwin Gray, Max Hugel, Carlos Campbell, John Fedders, Arthur Hayes, J.
Lynn Helms, Marjory Mecklenburg, Robert Nimmo, J. William Petro,
Thomas
C. Reed, Emanuel Savas, Charles Wick. Many of these names are lost to
history, but more than a few of them are still with us today,
'rehabilitated' by the administration of George W. Bush.
Ronald Reagan actively supported the regimes of the worst people ever
to walk the earth. Names like Marcos, Duarte, Rios Mont and Duvalier
reek of blood and corruption, yet were embraced by the Reagan
administration with passionate intensity. The ground of many nations
is
salted with the bones of those murdered by brutal rulers who called
Reagan a friend. Who can forget his support of those in South Africa
who believed apartheid was the proper way to run a civilized society?
One dictator in particular looms large across our landscape. Saddam
Hussein was a creation of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan administration
supported the Hussein regime despite his incredible record of
atrocity.
The Reagan administration gave Hussein intelligence information which
helped the Iraqi military use their chemical weapons on the
battlefield
against Iran to great effect. The deadly bacterial agents sent to Iraq
during the Reagan administration are a laundry list of horrors.
The Reagan administration sent an emissary named Donald Rumsfeld to
Iraq to shake Saddam Hussein's hand and assure him that, despite
public
American condemnation of the use of those chemical weapons, the Reagan
administration still considered him a welcome friend and ally. This
happened while the Reagan administration was selling weapons to Iran,
a
nation notorious for its support of international terrorism, in secret
and in violation of scores of laws.
Another name on Ronald Reagan's roll call is that of Osama bin Laden.
The Reagan administration believed it a bully idea to organize an army
of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union.
bin Laden became the spiritual leader of this action. Throughout the
entirety of Reagan's term, bin Laden and his people were armed, funded
and trained by the United States. Reagan helped teach Osama bin Laden
the lesson he lives by today, that it is possible to bring a
superpower
to its knees. bin Laden believes this because he has done it once
before, thanks to the dedicated help of Ronald Reagan.
In 1998, two American embassies in Africa were blasted into rubble by
Osama bin Laden, who used the Semtex sent to Afghanistan by the Reagan
administration to do the job. In 2001, Osama bin Laden thrust a dagger
into the heart of the United States, using men who became skilled at
the art of terrorism with the help of Ronald Reagan. Today, there are
827 American soldiers and over 10,000 civilians who have died in the
invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war that came to be because Reagan
helped manufacture both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
How much of this can be truthfully laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan?
It depends on who you ask. Those who worship Reagan see him as the man
in charge, the man who defeated Soviet communism, the man whose vision
and charisma made Americans feel good about themselves after Vietnam
and the malaise of the 1970s. Those who despise Reagan see him as
nothing more than a pitch-man for corporate raiders, the man who
allowed greed to become a virtue, the man who smiled vapidly while
allowing his officials to run the government for him.
In the final analysis, however, the legacy of Ronald Reagan - whether
he had an active hand in its formulation, or was merely along for the
ride - is beyond dispute. His famous question, "Are you better off now
than you were four years ago?" is easy to answer. We are not better
off
than we were four years ago, or eight years ago, or twelve, or twenty.
We are a badly damaged state, ruled today by a man who subsists off
Reagan's most corrosive final gift to us all: It is the image that
matters, and be damned to the truth.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060704A.shtml
"The truth is straightforward: Virtually every significant problem
facing the American people today can be traced back to the policies
and
people that came from the Reagan administration. It is a laundry list
of ills, woes and disasters that has all of us, once again, staring
apocalypse in the eye."
Sean C
Ronald Reagan is dead now, and everyone is being nice to him. In every
aspect, this is appropriate. He was a husband and a father, a beloved
member of a family, and he will be missed by those he was close to.
His
death was long, slow and agonizing because of the Alzheimer's Disease
which ruined him, one drop of lucidity at a time. My grandmother died
ten years ago almost to the day because of this disease, and this
disease took ten years to do its dirty, filthy, wretched work on her.
The dignity and candor of Reagan's farewell letter to the American
people was as magnificent a departure from public life as any that has
been seen in our history, but the ugly truth of his illness was that
he
lived on, and on, and on. His family and friends watched as he faded
from the world of the real, as the simple dignity afforded to all life
collapsed like loose sand behind his ever more vacant eyes. Only those
who have seen Alzheimer's Disease invade a mind can know the truth of
th | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
