F430murci

Haha, I just looked up above. Do my eyes deceive me or were people arguing politics when they were pulling dead 3rd graders out of an elementary school.

One would have to be a really miserable human to only think about politics at a time like that.

Just shows democracy is not the best thing for every country. Another Hussein type is needed to keep the country relatively in line.

In another decade or so I imagine there will be another war their to rid the nation of another despot because the west thinks democracy is the be all and end all. The cycle will continue.

This may sound like a horrible thing to say, but there are some groups of people who need to be ruled by an iron fist. Parts of the Middle East only work if they have heavy handed dictators.

Absolutely. Not much for us to do but exit stage left and let country sort itself out. I do feel for Iraq, but some of the other countries over their can burn to the ground and then the world would be a better place.

Sorry, he comes off as pretty darned stupid.

If he really has a high IQ, that doesn't mean he used it.

Clearly his bizarre fundamentalism (God talks to him when making big decisions, yeah right) was a crutch.

His Iraq war invasion was the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

England provided one-third of the troops for the Iraq invasion. There were more than 20 countries in that invasion, including Thailand.

Tony Blair stood before his country and stated that there were weapons of mass destruction which had to be taken out.

Now of course it's all Bush's fault. Certainly it's all the US fault. Never mind that Britain has high quality intelligence who themselves said there were WMDs,

Both the US Congress and the British Parliament voted to go to war. That's a lot of people. Even liberal Democrats in the US congress voted to declare war on Iraq.

So how do you explain Britain providing 1/3 of the troops with approval from Parliament, along with 20 other countries, and then blame Bush?

Your revisionist history makes you look like what you are, speaking of IQ.

I blame it all on Tony Blair and the Brits.

Why other countries joined in is easy to explain.

'You are either with us or against us'.

So with the US being an economic power the smaller countries just joined in to not be offside with the good old US of A.

Also many countries had very little intelligence on WMD as most of that intelligence came from the USA. So most of the world believed Bush when he lied about the WMD's and just hoped they would be found.

Now that the majority of the world knows the US govt will lie to them to get their own way they may not be so quick to back them next time.

For us or against was taken to the extreme. That administration ruined so many lives of anyone that was against them. CIA and military personnel whistle blowers, federal prosecutors and even people that were once part of his team.

How many times did we hear the for us or against us, thugs, axis of evil and etc. and all the impressionable sheep party base followed and bought it hook line and sinker. Even the airport security levels were artificial kept at Orange to just keep the followers scared enough to follow. I used to watch this stuff with amasement that anyone would actually buy into or believe it. Still amazes me today how impressionable people can be or how many have a complete inability to be free thinkers.

No, I think it is a little bit more like bacteria and viruses are a lot like us, they are just looking for new places to live and grow and a comfortable environment in which to do it. There are just SO very many of us now that invading the human body is a little like the discovery of the New World.

A lot of these microbes would just as soon leave us alive, but there are a few that do better on a corpse.

This is so very true and precise reason for our evolution. Life at all cellular levels is competing for resources and to survive. Mans effort to blunt or interfere in this process will likely always be a few steps behind millions of years genetic responses focused on adaption and survival.

There many bacteria that are resistant to current antibiotics. Many of these are abundant in health care settings and are opportunistic seizing in compromised immunity during surgery or sickness.

http://m.theweek.com/article.php?id=241007

Even some of the common staphs and streps are resistant and now C Diff becomes a problem in response to the vancomycin, gentomicin, rifampin, targocid and etc.

marell, on 01 Jun 2013 - 16:19, said:

impulse, on 01 Jun 2013 - 08:27, said:

I chalk him up as a man of integrity and principles who was led to that position by power hungry (and evil) men who then used him to pursue their agenda(s).

Had it not been for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, I think he would have done okay. Not the best, but certainly not the tragedy his time in office proved to be.

Sadly, it will take the USA 100 years to live down that legacy. And I don't know if we have 100 years.

He appointed all those guys and is responsible for allowing them to pursue their agendas. You can delegate authority but you can't delegate responsibility.

If he were truly a "man of integrity and principles" then he would never have let himself be used the way he was. No, he willingly and freely went along with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, which makes him as guilty and evil as they are.

Let's face it: Bush is a bit stupid. And the much smarter Cheney and others played on his intoxication with fame and power, and manipulated him like a puppet on a string.

Yep, unfortunately this is very true. Amazing period for USA that dang near bankrupted the entire country in many ways. Few understood or care to appreciate how bad it really was and at what future costs it took to shore up our financial system.

I am nohh a smarrrt man.

I don't agree with his politics, but the man managed to learn to fly fighter jets, graduate from a top school and get elected president twice on top of being governor of one of the larger US states.

I'd call him many things, but stupid isn't one of them.

That bad attempt at a Forest Gump quote was meant to be light hearted. Bush is a fun guy to rip because he just made it so easy.

Facts are facts. 119 or 126 IQ and 1200 SATs are average at best and only seem good to sone of you guys thanks to a whole lot of underachievers.

The guy could barely speak coherently. I actually use to cringe and feel sorry for him.

"He is smarter than you think" type statements are rarely said in reference to someone that is actually smart. If your really smart, neither you nor anyone else will need to tell the world The world will notice.

Bush's 1200 SATs and IQ of 126 is an indicator of about a 155 on the LSAT (120 -180) with 155 being about the 65th percentile. Most seem to say he was in 119 range, but even at 126 is very far behind curve.

He would have zero chance at Harvard or a top tier law school. He may even have difficulty getting into bottom tier schools based on those scores.

Harvard LS average LSAT is a 173 so average IQ of HLS students is perhaps in the 145. LSAT 163=IQ 130 and average LSAT at HLS is 173, then the average HLS student has an IQ of 145 or 146, since on the LSAT 10 points is one SD.

We may then presume you are not a Harvard Law graduate?

Chuck, you shouldn't be so down on yourself. I am sure there are other guys that also got their GED at 55.

Not a Bush fan at all. But here's food for thought:

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

If he was so smart, what didn't he understand about "We are under attack"?

The guy could barely speak coherently. I use to cringe and feel sorry for him.

"He is smarter than you think" type statements are rarely said in reference to someone that is actually smart. If your smart, the world will notice.

Bush's 1200 SATs and IQ of 126 is an indicator of about a 155 on the LSAT (120 -180). A 155 is the 65th percentile. Most seem to say his IQ was 119, but even 126 is well behind the curve.

Bush would have zero chance at Harvard or a top tier law school. He may experience difficulty getting into bottom tier schools based on those scores.

Harvard LS average LSAT is 173ish so average IQ of HLS students is perhaps 145ish. LSAT 163=IQ 130 and average LSAT at HLS is 173, then the average HLS student has an IQ of 145 or 146, since on the LSAT 10 points is one SD.

Haha, chuckd. Don't come over here and spread you old sour pus opinions about Obama in this Bush thread.

Yes, power can dim your vision. But this is especially true if you're a complete dimbulb to start with. I guess one indicator of his brilliance is the way he so cleverly disguised his superior intelligence. I'm sure he confounded many of his foes with this tactic.

Bingo. You said it much more eloquently than I.

I'm just guessing here, but I presume you see nothing unusual about the last one shown above.

One of the 44 has nothing to report. Maybe he will find out when it come out on the evening news.

Graduated JD magna cum laude from Harvard and first black president of Harvard law review. No easy task to accomplish either.

Yes but how well you apply your IQ, also your university degrees is much more to the point.

For decades you could find many companies who just checked CVs for the highest GPA, and the highest GPA got the job.

The highest GPA approach started to crumble in many western counties 20 plus years ago, now the focus is on emotional intelligence and with good results.

I teach MBA programs and I mentor doctoral candidates. I know very well (and other lecturers will tell you the same thing) that many students get high scores for individual assignments etc., but there would be very big doubts whether they have the wherewithal to apply their book knowledge in complex situations with urgency / can regularly generate innovations etc.

Highest GPAs still get top jobs, but I agree it is very difficult sometimes to determine who has both book smarts and common sense as the two often do not go hand-in-hand.

We and most large firms won't even interview you unless you are top 10 percent, law review and clerked for a Federal Judge which also generally requires top 5 to 10 %. Some large firms only consider same criteria from top tier law schools. We are not snobbish as I believe many smart kids out there just cannot afford top tier schools.

I work in health care and securities and my clients in this area generally only pull top students from top tier schools. Very competitive market here though.

I was disputing the claims on this thread that the man is stupid. He is not stupid - whether one agrees with his politics, or not.

Yes, this is a sign of a truly smart man:

Ahhhh, would not let me post YouTube link of video. Here us a classic picture of the event though . . .

http://justanothermoneyblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/bush-walks-into-locked-door.html?m=1

I am nohh a smarrrt man.

His IQ is reportedly 126. He is far from stupid.

IQ alone is not a determiner of the decisions he made as President and certainly 126 is nothing special

It is considered exeptional and it is higher than John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Dwight Eisenhower - all of who were presidents in office since 1900.

Bush's SAT scores and grades at University were very similar to Al Gore and he invented the internet!

Uhm, 143 is higher than 119 or your score for him at 126.

Name Political Party Lifespan Time in Office Uncorrected IQ Average[11] Corrected IQ Average[11] Cumulative Average[11] Other IQ Estimates

George Washington None/Federalist 17321799 17891797 130.0 135.0 132.5

John Adams Federalist 17351826 17971801 132.5 152.5 142.5

Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican 17431826 18011809 147.5 160.0 153.8

James Madison Democratic-Republican 17511836 18091817 127.5 155.0 141.3

James Monroe Democratic-Republican 17581831 18171825 118.6 129.7 124.1

John Quincy Adams Democratic-Republican 17671848 18251829 165.0 172.5 168.8

Andrew Jackson Democratic 17671845 18291837 120.0 132.5 126.3

Martin van Buren Democratic 17821862 18371841 127.3 139.5 133.4

William Henry Harrison Whig 17731841 1841 127.9 140.0 133.9

John Tyler Whig 17901862 18411845 130.1 142.4 136.2

James Polk Democratic 17951849 18451849 124.4 136.1 130.2

Zachary Taylor Whig 17841850 18491850 120.1 131.3 125.7

Millard Fillmore Whig 18001874 18501853 129.1 142.9 136.0

Franklin Pierce Democratic 18041869 18531857 128.5 141.1 134.8

James Buchanan Democratic 17911868 18571861 120.7 131.2 125.9

Abraham Lincoln Republican 18091865 18611865 132.5 147.5 140.0

Andrew Johnson National Union/Democratic 18081875 18651869 120.1 131.3 125.7

Ulysses Grant Republican 18221885 18691877 117.5 122.5 120.0

Rutherford Hayes Republican 18221893 18771881 127.9 140.0 133.9

James Garfield Republican 18311881 1881 135.1 147.9 141.5

Chester Arthur Republican 18291886 18811885 135.1 147.9 141.5

Grover Cleveland Democratic 18371908 18851889, 18931897 125.1 136.8 131.0

Benjamin Harrison Republican 18331901 18891893 125.9 138.4 132.2

William McKinley Republican 18431901 18971901 124.4 136.0 130.2

Theodore Roosevelt Republican 18581919 19011909 135.8 148.8 142.3

William Howard Taft Republican 18571930 19091913 122.2 131.7 126.9

Woodrow Wilson Democratic 18561924 19131921 119.5 102.4 110.9

Warren Harding Republican 18651923 19211923 118.1 130.5 124.3

Calvin Coolidge Republican 18721933 19231929 121.0 133.2 127.1

Herbert Hoover Republican 18741964 19291933 125.0 134.6 129.8

Franklin Roosevelt Democratic 18821945 19331945 133.6 145.7 139.6

Harry Truman Democratic 18841972 19451953 122.9 132.2 127.6

Dwight Eisenhower Republican 18901969 19531961 125.7 138.1 131.9

John F. Kennedy Democratic 19171963 19611963 143.6 157.8 150.7 119.0[14]

Lyndon Johnson Democratic 19081973 19631969 122.8 132.9 127.8

Richard Nixon Republican 19131994 19691974 126.0 136.1 131.0 143.0[15]

Gerald Ford Republican 19132006 19741977 121.8 132.4 127.1

Jimmy Carter Democratic 1924present 19771981 137.3 152.9 145.1

Ronald Reagan Republican 19112004 19811989 125.1 134.9 130.0

George H. W. Bush Republican 1924present 19891993 124.6 135.7 130.1

Bill Clinton Democratic 1946present 19932001 141.3 156.3 148.8

George W. Bush Republican 1946present 20012009 119.8 130.0 124.9 119.0[16]

Barack Obama Democratic 1961present 2009present N/A N/A N/A

A picture of Weather Channel vehicle Mike Bettes was in when it got throw 200 yards.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SeanSchoferTVN/status/340625216378126337/photo/1

Very lucky people in there. Reporting 6 - 8" of rain now.

There is a storm chaser video floating around that is like movie twister. Buildings are being blown onto truck breaking windows, debris flying at them and then a large hay bail is blown into the truck. Crazy. These guys don't usually get caught like this. Even Ken Cole in that tank like vehicle that can survive direct huts had his hood ripped off in Oklahoma City. St. Louis had a large tornado with a debris ball also.

Cole vehicle:

http://www.reddirtreport.com/Story.aspx/25676

A picture of Weather Channel vehicle Mike Bettes was in when it got throw 200 yards.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SeanSchoferTVN/status/340625216378126337/photo/1

Now flooding there. Poor people. Mayor of Moore was being interviewed while in large safe and his office worker in safe with him received call saying the Chick-filla right behind him was taken out while he was in the phone.

I am nohh a smarrrt man.

His IQ is reportedly 126. He is far from stupid.

Was that reported in Mad Magazine?

Skip the hoax part, but look under IQ estimates by academics. 1206 in SATs.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax

1206??? Dumb fer sure. They say GW second to last in IQ for Presidents since 1900.

I think his epiphany mentioned in OP would be expected for someone occupying the position of President that is lower in intelligence.

I am nohh a smarrrt man.

His IQ is reportedly 126. He is far from stupid.

Haha, 126 impresses you? Dim wit for a president, but maybe a rocket scientist for a Walmart greeter.

Weather channel crew got caught by a tornado and the SUV was demolished and thrown into a field in OKlahoma City area.

I am nohh a smarrrt man.

Large tornado on ground In North Moore again.

Science has a lot to gain by reviving long extinct species. We can learn a great deal about how they actually lived, their characteristics, how they react to different stimuli etc. We might learn a lot about diseases and disease resistance.

The difficulty is that such an exercise would likely be looked at as much for its commercial value as for it's scientific one and that could be a bit of a Pandora's Box.

studying on epidemiology based on cloned extinct species are potentially a double edged sword. a viral mutation mishandled could be very deadly. besides a properly handled accidental viral mutation under labs in any form would be a love subject for any military.

and that is getting past much of the issues such as telometric differences, top of that we are speaking of a old dna strand. and we dont even fully understood dna. factors such as benefits from epidemiology studies based on live extinct species just doesnt exist at this stage and further than a practical wormhole

Even though I by no means have a real clue or am an infectious disease specialist, that was my concern. Genetic adaption and immunity now may provide no protection to viral and bacterial issues 17,000 years ago, but I have no idea how that works at a genetic sequencing level over time.

US millitary labs are apparently careful and cautious on these issue. Russian labs . . . I can see a couple of night lab guards carrying a large bottle of vodka saying hey Sergie, check this out . . . Russians can be a bit like the old Abbott and Costello shows and I can say this lovingly as I married to one.

Not sure reintroduction of long extinct animals is wise. Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason why they are extinct.

Don't F with mother nature may have some validity. Still freaky to see blood from an animal that old in a clip I saw on a air port terminal news loop last night.