Heh.

The average range for IQ's is 90-110. It depends on how you define genius, but 125-128 is pretty damned smart.

Genius is usually defined as over 140 or 150, no?

My personal definition is the whatever my exact IQ is, that's a fucking genuis. Anyone with a lower IQ is a fuckin' retard; anyone with a higher one is fuckin' dork who spends too much fuckin' time doing Jumbles and Cryptoquotes.

O/T: new pope has been picked, no word yet on who

I have and IQ of 140 and let me tell your, I'm no f******g genius

I was tested when I was about 11 years old and I was 140 then.
But I know that not using it = losing it. And I haven't exactly been pursuing intellectual stimulation for the last ten years or so.

And frankly, after hanging out here with you idiots, I'd be surprised if I'm even 'average' anymore.

Coming from an enviroment where people make it the highest virtue attainable to be "eloquent" it is no surprise that Kerry is a better talker than W. But Kerry's continual lying and own his stupid gaffs: "I voted for it before I voted against it" do not show a superior intelligence (especially to Bush) and his shallow Liberal thinking proves it beyond dispute.

Hope that email is legitimate – but it strikes me as odd that Charles Murrray would refer to the President as "Dubya".

Oh, come on, everyone knows I'm a blithering retard and mine's about 159.

JF'nK must be a vegetable

One other thing about Kerry that shows he's not really smart is his utther contempt for the public at large. Part of the problem stems from his living in splendid Liberal isolation. But his long-winded explainations and pathetic excuses show he believes that basically people are stupid and it's easy to pull the wool over their eyes. Anyone with any real intelligence knows this isn't true.

Not to Dave ya, but isn't this story pre-election (i.e., OLD)?

Son of a pig and a monkey

I have and IQ of 140

If spelling errors are indikative of IQ then I'm brilliat too.

New Pope - Cardinal Ratzinger now Benedict (the something.)

"My personal definition is the whatever my exact IQ is, that's a fucking genuis. Anyone with a lower IQ is a fuckin' retard; anyone with a higher one is fuckin' dork who spends too much fuckin' time doing Jumbles and Cryptoquotes."

What would buying a t-shirt have gotten me?

If Bush was 125-128 with a stock market equity cap likely to be lower than when he took office, the lowest job creation figures since Hoover, a greatly shrunken AF and Naval Fleet........2 trillion in new debt...wealth in American concentrating in the top 1-5%....

Imagine what Reagan and Clinton's IQs must have been!

My brother was tested in grade school and got a 140 while I got a 120. While there really was some difference, it never seemed to me that there was that much of a difference to warrant a 20 point spread. I always thought his IQ exaggerated because he had read so much from such an early age. Wearing glasses made him more physically hesitant to do the risky things kids do in testing boundarie; but also forced him to be slightly less aware of his surroundings and therefore slightly better able to concentrate upon thinking.

Not only is this story old (it came out before the election), but it's not even relevant. Sorry to be a jerk, but "Bush has a slightly higher IQ than old what's-his-name that he beat in the election six months ago" is a pretty lame story.

This is so lame, in fact, that I'm inclined to believe it's an intentional play on the "look, I post outdated stories" thing. At least I hope that's what it is.

Cedarford - Clinton claiming credit for the good economic times of the 90's after they were created by the policies of the Reagan-Bush era is like Macy's claiming credit for Christmas, which Clinton would've done too, if his "handlers" hadn't stopped him.

And much of our troubles today can be laid at the feet of Clinton's inaction to stem terrorism (or do much of anything else except race and gender baiting and getting blow jobs from interns in the White House) during the 1990's, including some of the high oil prices.

Cedarford,

We've got Bush for four years, like it or not. You're accomplishing little by runing him down intentionally at this point.

Furthermore, blaming him for a poor economy that can be directly attributed (in part) to the attacks of 9/11 is a stretch.

The dot-com economy was collapsing in October of 2000. I remember it. It really started falling apart in December. Over a month before Bush. The tax cuts helped to stimulate, but the attacks placed a huge echoing drag on the economy that we're still suffering. His spending on the war is fine, in isolation, but he's also pulled off some real idiotic moves like the education bill (with Teddy K) and Medicare prescription drugs.

I mean it's one thing to criticise Bush for spending too much on government and betraying the core Republican consensus on smaller governemnt. But to spew that lib/paleocon crap about Hoover is silly and historically myopic.

The problem with the 8-year cycle theory - that all Bush's economic disasters are really just the consequences of Clinton's policies, and Clinton's great 8 years was all really due to 8 years of groundwork laid by Reagan-Bush I is that you end up with this:

Reagans 1st 4 years of economic recovery was all Gerry Fords doing, then in 1984, the genius of Jimmy Carters domestic policies finally kicked in, and allowed Reagan to really flourish.

At best you blame the 1st two years of an Admin's domestic record on the previous Administration.

The current mess is as much Bush's as the malaise economy of Jimmy Carter was all Jimmah's in 1980.

Bush has borrowed money, 2 trillion. Reagan borrowed money too. The difference is Reagan borrowed the money to rebuild America's military using American labor, and launching massive backing of High Tech R&D. Reagan saved the domestic car industry by imposing quotas on Jap cars at a point when Chrysler was in bankruptcy and Ford and GM were teetering on the edge of it. He backed saving Harley-Davidson, Chrysler, Lockheed.

Bush? Borrowed money for tax cuts for the rich, a palace-building program using Mexican labor Saddam can only envy, a smaller Navy and AF, 300 billion squandered in Gulf War II so far.
Jobs not for Americans building F-117s, but for Chinese building most of America's high tech consumer needs.

This is like the aftermath of Ford-Carter. Both were fucking disasters, Jimmy was even worse. This is like having 4 more years of Gerry Ford as the Carter (Kerry) alternative loses.

It's OK cedarford, the world will end in 2020 anyway according to St Malachy anyway, so our pain is temporary.

btw, wtf does this mean? "a palace-building program using Mexican labor Saddam can only envy"

lax immigration enforcement and construction jobs? still doesn;t sound like saddam.

stop being incorrectly provocative.

and afaik, the money for reconstruction was going in decent amounts to American firms, (Euros as well) but not Chinese. How does the Chinese production of consumer goods relate to Bush's spending in the WoT?

you're sounding crank-y again dude.

Laura, you scored 140 on what test? Because if it was a Wechsler, you're Spock, but if it was a Stanford-Binet, not so much.

Hobby - The reference is to Saddam squandering Iraq's money building palaces. Bush has borrowed 2 trillion from the Japanese, Chinese, French and Saudis to fund essentially unilateral war costs in Iraq and perpetuate his tax cuts for the wealthy long after the supposed surplus originally used to justify them disappeared.

The money Bush kicked back has not gone for capital investment, jobs creation - but to mansion building and buying imported consumer goods. The Mexican reference is about the changeout to cheap illegal labor occuring in the construction trades.

When Reagan borrowed money he borrowed less and spent it domestically in a huge job creation program rebuilding the military and procuring new ships, planes, and equipment. Reagan also raised taxes when his debts became unhealthily large.

The difference under Dubya is stark. Less fighters, transports, and bomber planes. A Navy on a construction schedule that continues to attrit ships - we are on a reduced shipbuilding schedule that will take us to 140 ships by 2020. He's burned up much of the Reservist time. Not a single new vessel for the Coastguard. Less M-1 tanks and Bradleys than he got from Clinton.

And China is using part of it's 150 billion/yr US trade dollars gained to buy the best Soviet aircraft carrier killing cruisers & sunburn missiles, Israeli F-16 avionics they purloined from us as the dear allies they are, plus Israeli-made radars and secure C3 nets, again purloined from the Americans. And the Europeans are panting to sell China the ECM and sophisticated anti-air, anti-ship missile networks
they seek. China has built 100 ships and 15 submarines in Dubya's time. Dubya has 2 new subs, retired 7. 3 new ships, decommissioned 31.