How smart is Bush?

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

OK chief, here's the problem with your idea: you assume that shrinking brain volume is indicative of shrinking inttelligence. Do you have a source that supports this? Oh, and the 'source' that you posted above... Where is the source?

Not only that, but why does he choose to ignore some quotes from his own posts:

In general, alcoholics evaluated before and after a period of abstinence show some recovery of tissue volume

Hell, by his logic, Bush is *smarter* than all of us, since he's recovering for years! His brain stem is probably gigantic - which has, of course, been shown to the leading indicator of intelligence. :roll:

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: dahunan
I really have a hard time understanding how anyone can defend all of Dubyas blunders in his speeches. Seriously.... he sounds like someone who has had a traumatic injury to his brain. <<call me partisan all you want.

He has, except it was a slow 20 year alcoholic one rather than a 2/10th of a second car accident one.

OK chief, here's the problem with your idea: you assume that shrinking brain volume is indicative of shrinking inttelligence. Do you have a source that supports this? Oh, and the 'source' that you posted above... Where is the source?

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Alcohol consumption leads to damage in the brainstem

If this is true, then I have brain stem damage. In fact, almost everyone here has brain stem damage. Amazing. Did you know that water is actually an alcohol (H-OH)? You can get drunk off it. It's called water intoxication. I've been drunk enough before to almost drown in the ocean - does that mean I'm less intelligent now than I was when I started, or that my brain stem is damaged? If so, I'd better go turn in my lab keys and return the money that I'm getting paid to go to school. I've even seen studies that show drinking beer in moderation is good for you. A glass of red wine every day is good for you - both of my parents do, and they're hardly slurring their words or unable to speak.

All of those sources were cited by author and title and taken from PubMed. You can look them up.

As to the whole "water is an alcohol" and "water intoxification" - here again I get to stand up to an idiot who has no idea what he is talking about.

An alcohol has the form R-OH where R is an organic substituent. So, for example, in CH3-CH2-OH, ethanol, the alcohol that we drink, R would be CH3-CH2. H is never a substituent. It cannot delocalize electrons, is not an electron sink, it is merely H. So no, water is not an alcohol.

"Water intoxification" is not "intoxification" the way that "alcohol intoxification" is. Intoxicate means to have too much of, so you could have sugar intoxication. Alcohol intoxification is when the alcohol molecules cross the brain-blood barrier and produce their CNS effects that we all like so much. Water intoxification, on the other hand, refers to the condition when a person consumes so much water that the electrolytes in their blood become dangerously unbalanced (for example the K+ involved in the heart). Two completely different types of intoxification.

As to your contention that you have brain stem damage because you consumer alcohol - look over those sources again. You will always see the word "chronic" as in "chronic alcohol abuse" as in alcoholic. Consuming alcohol every now and then only has temporary effects. It is the long term abuse that leads to the troubles I illustrated.

Please come back when you know what you are talking about.

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: cmp1223
We shouldn't have to justify our president's intellegence using an apptitude test from 30 years ago. It should be apparent in is speeches...

BWAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!! Way to choose an intelligent barometer that supports your position. I think we should measure intelligence by alphabetical last name. B comes before K.

Look, would you not think a little brain damage is possible in the 30 years since he took that test? We loose millions of brains cells everyday, and taking drugs and drinking alcohol accelerates it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
If his extensive and continuous verbal fumbles are not the result of brain damage - that is, not each and every one - then what is your reasoning for the fact that the President is continuously tripping over the English language? What is your explanation?

It is about time that people like me start standing up to you conservative hacks and the problems which you have brought to our country.

We're 'conservative hacks' because we don't agree with you? Good, good. You're a liberal hack because you're trying to argue that Bush is an idiot since he isn't a great speaker. Does that make you feel better? I'd pay money to see you give a speech to 10,000 people and not fumble with a couple words, especially if asked an on-the-spot question. Bush is no Tony Blair, but his 'shrunken brain mass' doesn't necessarily dictate that he can't speak properly.

 

[faiznne]

Bush is not very smart. He is probably a C-average student.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

OK chief, here's the problem with your idea: you assume that shrinking brain volume is indicative of shrinking inttelligence. Do you have a source that supports this? Oh, and the 'source' that you posted above... Where is the source?

Not only that, but why does he choose to ignore some quotes from his own posts:

In general, alcoholics evaluated before and after a period of abstinence show some recovery of tissue volume

Hell, by his logic, Bush is *smarter* than all of us, since he's recovering for years! His brain stem is probably gigantic - which has, of course, been shown to the leading indicator of intelligence. :roll:

No, you are doing what I just caught you doing - making stuff up. What this means is that people with damage can recover some of the damaged area with abstinence. Some, not all. They do not grow it back totally and then have it keep growing to become even smarter. What probably happens is that immunological effects remove some of the damaged cells and allow other cells to grow.

How about you stop making things up and just admit that you are wrong?

Here you go

"Wineglass" confabulations among brain-damaged alcoholics on the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised visual reproduction subtest.
Welch LW, Nimmerrichter A, Gilliland R, King DE, Martin PR
Confabulation is a clinically well-documented accompaniment of selective types of memory impairment, especially in brain-damaged alcoholics. This study reports specific occurrences of visual confabulation consisting of spontaneous alterations of Card D of the Visual Reproduction subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. The resemblance of a wineglass was fashioned by a 90-degree rotation into a "bowl and stem", observed in six of 30 brain-damaged alcoholics. There were no such instances in 132 other patients, including alcoholic controls, those with Parkinson's Disease, temporal lobe epileptics (pre- or post-surgery), and those with neurotoxic exposure. When asked, the subjects who identified the figure as a wineglass or similar drinking instrument reported that they had drawn it as originally shown to them. "Wineglass" confabulators had shorter periods of abstinence, longer drinking histories and lower intellectual functioning than their brain-damaged peers or an alcoholic control group. These findings lend support for the association of alcohol-related confabulation with visual, as well as previously-documented verbal material among brain-damaged alcoholics.

Let me state this again for the idiots who don't get it - chronic alcohol abuse leads to brain damage. Fact.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
If his extensive and continuous verbal fumbles are not the result of brain damage - that is, not each and every one - then what is your reasoning for the fact that the President is continuously tripping over the English language? What is your explanation?

It is about time that people like me start standing up to you conservative hacks and the problems which you have brought to our country.

We're 'conservative hacks' because we don't agree with you? Good, good. You're a liberal hack because you're trying to argue that Bush is an idiot since he isn't a great speaker. Does that make you feel better? I'd pay money to see you give a speech to 10,000 people and not fumble with a couple words, especially if asked an on-the-spot question. Bush is no Tony Blair, but his 'shrunken brain mass' doesn't necessarily dictate that he can't speak properly.

No - you're conservative hacks because you make things up without knowing what you are talking about.

 

[cKGunslinger]

*sigh* You are going to make me respond to you again, aren't you?

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Let's try this again. First you tell me that I am "rather young, and therefore a product of the "OMG! Teh drugs and teh booze will rot your brain!!!111one"-mentality that has been preached for the last few decades" thus calling me either

A) stupid
B) ignorant of what I am talking about

Or how about C) Possibly confused and biased

Why is that not an option? Why must you assume I am attacking you by calling you "ignorant" or "stupid"? We're not a bit insecure or paranoid, are we?

So then I post what is modern, peer-reviewed, scientifically correct proof that alcohol does, in fact, "rot your brain." And make it quite clear that you were talking out of your a$$ and making things up without any real knowledge.

Hmm.. modern, peer-reviewed "proof" (despite your lack of actually posting sources) that the brain may shrink or be damaged. Where's the "proof" that this makes someone "dumb"? I haven't seen that bit of proof yet. Saving it for something? If so, now would be the time to whip it out, don't you think?

I never claimed that every single verbal fumbling was the result of alcoholic damage. What I said, and continue to say, is "the continuous and extensive verbal fumbles that spew out of his mouth are consistent with brain damage resulting from long term alcohol abuse."

True, perhaps I overstated your claims, but certainly not your implications. I could just as easily take any trait of yours and claim that it "consistent" with "some sub-group of humanity that is or should be ridiculed and/or scorned." That has as much scientific validity as assuming anyone with a mustache is "consistent with Hitler." :roll:

How about you say "After impugning your character and ridiculing your statements, attributing them to mass conspiracy rather than factual scientific knowledge, I now know that I am wrong and you are right. Not only did I make wildly outrageous claims for which I had no proof but only in the face of staggering evidence to the contrary do I admit that I am, in fact, wrong. And to cover the fact that I had questioned your claim that alcoholism leads to brain damage I now say that I will never question them (because to do so would be to expose my blinding ignorance and make me subject to ridicule)."

Sure, if that makes you feel all better and ends this ridiculous discussion - go ahead and pretend I said that.

You are a partisan hack. Pure and simple. Only this time you got caught in your ignorance and exposed.

You shifted the debate from whether GW Bush is intelligent to now admitting that only some, not all, of his verbal fumbles are the result of alcohol damage.

Really? Where did I admit that again? Also, by my defending a man, you have assumed that I must support his political beliefs and hold them as my own. Which one of us is the "partisan hack" again?

Instead of some "shift the issue" response I ask that you only answer one question:

If his extensive and continuous verbal fumbles are not the result of brain damage - that is, not each and every one - then what is your reasoning for the fact that the President is continuously tripping over the English language? What is your explanation?

If you really have to ask that, then any reason anyone would have to consider you a "scientific expert" is totally and irrevocably erased. You have removed the entire notions of "speech impediments," "fear of public speaking," "nervousness," "unfamiliarity with the language," and any other reason why anyone would fumble with the English language with one ignorant statement. Congratulations! Here's your reward:

It is about time that people like me start standing up to you conservative hacks and the problems which you have brought to our country.

Wow, could you take a few steps back, your self-righteousness is dripping on my shoes. Thanks.

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: faiznne
Bush is not very smart. He is probably a C-average student.

I agree. If Bush got that score on the SAT how the heck did he get c's at Yale?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
As to the whole "water is an alcohol" and "water intoxification" - here again I get to stand up to an idiot who has no idea what he is talking about.

Calling your bluff - #1. Water intoxication is very real, whether you're aware of it or not. link The family practice doctor in my immediate family sees about 8 cases of water intoxication in the emergency room every year.

An alcohol has the form R-OH where R is an organic substituent. So, for example, in CH3-CH2-OH, ethanol, the alcohol that we drink, R would be CH3-CH2. H is never a substituent. It cannot delocalize electrons, is not an electron sink, it is merely H. So no, water is not an alcohol.

Any chemical with an OH group can have similar effects on the body, as the polarity of the OH group has similar effects. If you would have studied as hard in general chemistry as you apparently did in organic, you would have learned that water DOES dissociate into the alcohol (OH-) ion, albeit in low concentrations, which is why you need to drink a metric buttload of water to get intoxicated from it.

"Water intoxification" is not "intoxification" the way that "alcohol intoxification" is. Intoxicate means to have too much of, so you could have sugar intoxication. Alcohol intoxification is when the alcohol molecules cross the brain-blood barrier and produce their CNS effects that we all like so much. Water intoxification, on the other hand, refers to the condition when a person consumes so much water that the electrolytes in their blood become dangerously unbalanced (for example the K+ involved in the heart). Two completely different types of intoxification.

Intoxification isn't even a word. Read my above source about water intoxication: it matches your description exactly. Amazing, isn't it? This is #3 in this post - keep track for future reference.

As to your contention that you have brain stem damage because you consumer alcohol - look over those sources again. You will always see the word "chronic" as in "chronic alcohol abuse" as in alcoholic. Consuming alcohol every now and then only has temporary effects. It is the long term abuse that leads to the troubles I illustrated.

Drinking one glass of wine every day is chronic. Drinking a beer every day is chronic. Yet, studies have shown that this actually improves health and overall well-being. You can argue that this is abuse or not abuse, but the study doesn't specify - you tried to specify the study. In the science world, that's not how it works. I strongly suggest you take your own advice:

Please come back when you know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
No - you're conservative hacks because you make things up without knowing what you are talking about.

What does this make you? I've shown that I'm a far shade from ignorant on the issues, while you've demostrated quite well that you are. Are you a hack, or aren't you?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I've shown that I'm a far shade from ignorant on the issues, while you've demostrated quite well that you are.

Yeah, but you forgot to sprinkle it with some well-placed belittling and contemptuous statements, such as "I know what I'm talking about, idiot" and "It is about time that people like me start standing up to you."

How can we take you seriously when you don't remind us how great you are and how stupid we must be, Cyclo? :laugh:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I've shown that I'm a far shade from ignorant on the issues, while you've demostrated quite well that you are.

Yeah, but you forgot to sprinkle it with some well-placed belittling and contemptuous statements, such as "I know what I'm talking about, idiot" and "It is about time that people like me start standing up to you."

How can we take you seriously when you don't remind us how great you are and how stupid we must be, Cyclo? :laugh:

Maybe I scared him away. :?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dahunan
If he was SO SMART then why did he FAIL the National Guard Entrance Exams? << honest question.

I wonder if his SAT scores were fudged just like how he was accepted into the guard with an unacceptable score?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: dahunan
If he was SO SMART then why did he FAIL the National Guard Entrance Exams? << honest question.

I wonder if his SAT scores were fudged just like how he was accepted into the guard with an unacceptable score?

About time someone came in to say this. :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

kage69:

"More seldom than not, the movies gives us exquisite sex and violence that underscores our values. Every two child did. I will."
-Economic Club meeting in Detroit, MI. 2000.


"King Abdullah of Jordan, the King of Morocco, I mean, there's a series of places Qatar, Oman I mean, places that are developing Bahrain they're all developing the habits of free societies."
-Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004


"Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information outside the administration."
-Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003


"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself."
-Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"There's a lot of people in the Middle East who are desirous to get into the Mitchell process. And but first things first. The these terrorist acts and, you know, the responses have got to end in order for us to get the framework the groundwork not framework, the groundwork to discuss a framework for peace, to lay the all right."
-Referring to former Sen. George Mitchell's report on Middle East peace, Crawford, Texas, Aug. 13, 2001
===========
cKGunslinger:

"If you really have to ask that, then any reason anyone would have to consider you a "scientific expert" is totally and irrevocably erased. You have removed the entire notions of "speech impediments," "fear of public speaking," "nervousness," "unfamiliarity with the language," and any other reason why anyone would fumble with the English language with one ignorant statement. Congratulations! Here's your reward
=============
AHAHAHAHAHAHA, Imagine a rational mind explaining the first post with the second. Far more likely is that Bush is the first successful human chimp cross.
=========
===========
ForThePeople:

"An alcohol has the form R-OH where R is an organic substituent. So, for example, in CH3-CH2-OH, ethanol, the alcohol that we drink, R would be CH3-CH2. H is never a substituent. It cannot delocalize electrons, is not an electron sink, it is merely H. So no, water is not an alcohol."

=========
CycloWizard:

"Any chemical with an OH group can have similar effects on the body, as the polarity of the OH group has similar effects. If you would have studied as hard in general chemistry as you apparently did in organic, you would have learned that water DOES dissociate into the alcohol (OH-) ion, albeit in low concentrations, which is why you need to drink a metric buttload of water to get intoxicated from it."
========
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA A donkey loaded with books remains a donkey.

Never have so many good brain cells chased after so many bad. It's rare to be treated to such a display of mental pedantry as we can see in this thread. I guess our conservative hacks here are under the impression that common sense is dead and that you can spin a new theory of existence whole cloth out of thin air. You guys missed your profession. You should be selling used cars.

==========
==========
I don't know or care how smart of stupid Bush is. His policy and his Presidency have been a disaster.

 

[afropuff]

HAH!

You can be the smartest mofo in the World and still suck at public speaking. That same person also should not be President, because being able to speak well and relate to your audience is a key quality of a President. Bush may be an intelligent person, but he can not communicate worth a damn.

I'd rather have Brian Williams as president. He did not even graduate from college, but he can communicate very well and is a very presentable and charismatic person.



-fro

 

[Moonbeam]

You can be the smartest mofo in the World and still suck at public speaking.

If you mean Stephen Hawkings , that's hardly fair.

 

[esun]

Since when is a 1280 on the SAT smart? I got an 1190 in 7th grade, so he's 100 points above a 7th-grader (and 240 points behind a 12th-grader). Of course, the SAT is a worthless test anyway. Personally, I consider a 1280 an average score for a college-bound student, and a low score for an Ivy-league or top 25 school person.

 

[ntdz]

1000 SAT is average, 1200 pretty good and 1400 way above average.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: esun
Since when is a 1280 on the SAT smart? I got an 1190 in 7th grade, so he's 100 points above a 7th-grader (and 240 points behind a 12th-grader). Of course, the SAT is a worthless test anyway. Personally, I consider a 1280 an average score for a college-bound student, and a low score for an Ivy-league or top 25 school person.

I'd be willing to bet I can find someone in fifth grade who can beat what you can do on the test now. What's your point?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Calling your bluff - #1. Water intoxication is very real, whether you're aware of it or not.

I am aware of it, as I described below. Water intoxication has nothing at all to do with alcohol intoxication, as you originally claimed "Did you know that water is actually an alcohol (H-OH)? You can get drunk off it. It's called water intoxication." Which is simply and completely untrue. You cannot "get drunk" off of water because water is not an alcohol and does not produce the same CNS effects that alcohol does - water intoxication is a result of fluid imbalance, not targeted neuroreceptor activity. Just admit that you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. Google does not make up for a lack of an education.

An alcohol has the form R-OH where R is an organic substituent. So, for example, in CH3-CH2-OH, ethanol, the alcohol that we drink, R would be CH3-CH2. H is never a substituent. It cannot delocalize electrons, is not an electron sink, it is merely H. So no, water is not an alcohol.

Any chemical with an OH group can have similar effects on the body [except for water, which is not an alcohol], as the polarity of the OH group has similar effects [no it doesn't - it is electron donating ability that matters]. If you would have studied as hard in general chemistry as you apparently did in organic, you would have learned that water DOES dissociate into the alcohol (OH-) ion, albeit in low concentrations,

which is why you need to drink a metric buttload of water to get intoxicated from it

First of all if water dissociates you get both an H+ and an OH- so you can clearly not get an abundance of only OH-, which you claim would make you drunk - the OH- and the H+ would recombine into water and no net effect would be present No, the reason you need to drink a lot of water before you suffer from "water intoxication" is that you need to upset the fluid balance in your body, ie consume massive amounts of water - it is the amount, not the chemical properties, that is responsible for the "water intoxication"

Again - simply and completely wrong. The OH (which is properly known as OH-) is a hydroxide group that acts as a base. We would expect it to undergo salt formation in the presence of an acid (which it does), to attack eletrophilic groups (which it does), and otherwise to react as a hydroxide with a strong negative charge.

The dissociation of water into H+ and OH- is known as self-ionization and has a Ka of 7e-14. It is rare and the amount of hydroxide in pure water is negligible.

The polarity of the OH has nothing at all to do with it. Alcohols, those with alkyl side groups, behave radically differently than hydroxide ions. They lose a H+ to form a highly negative oxygen to form a O- group, that is an OH bonded to an alkyl group that has lost a H+ to become just an O-. This is possible because the alkyl groups can donate or accept electron density (thus stabilizing the negative O). This is simply not possible with an H group.

To confirm this you need only look at the pKa of t-butyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, and water. The easier that the negative charge can be stabilized the easier the H+ can be lost - thus we would expect a benzyl group (with its series of delocalized pi electrons) to favor the O-, which it clearly does.

Water is clearly different than the any alcohol. It has different properties - it is a different chemical. Water is not an alcohol.

Let's make a prediction of what would happen if you were to ingest the following:
1) Ethanol
2) Methanol
3) Hydroxide

In case 1, as we know, you would be drunk and the alcohol would be oxidized to acetyl acid or a derivative. Same with sample 2 except that you would get an aldehyde (formaldehyde to be exact) - this is why "wood alcohol" is deadly. For 3, the "water alcohol" that you claim, you would get - salt. The OH would react with the HCl in your stomach to form water and you not get drunk.

"Water intoxification" is not "intoxification" the way that "alcohol intoxification" is. Intoxicate means to have too much of, so you could have sugar intoxication. Alcohol intoxification is when the alcohol molecules cross the brain-blood barrier and produce their CNS effects that we all like so much. Water intoxification, on the other hand, refers to the condition when a person consumes so much water that the electrolytes in their blood become dangerously unbalanced (for example the K+ involved in the heart). Two completely different types of intoxification.

Intoxification isn't even a word. Read my above source about water intoxication: it matches your description exactly (maybe because I know what the hell I am talking about).

Amazing, isn't it? No, it's science. Nothing special.

This is #3 in this post - keep track for future reference.

As to your contention that you have brain stem damage because you consume alcohol - look over those sources again. You will always see the word "chronic" as in "chronic alcohol abuse" as in alcoholic. Consuming alcohol every now and then only has temporary effects. It is the long term abuse that leads to the troubles I illustrated.

Drinking one glass of wine every day is chronic. Drinking a beer every day is chronic. Yet, studies have shown that this actually improves health and overall well-being No study would ever claim something so grand - what it talks about is likelihood of a heart attack and it is clearly attributed to the anticoagulant properties of alcohol, which we would expect to produce such physiological effects on the vascular system This has nothing to do with brain or liver damage..

You can argue that this is abuse or not abuse each study looked at "alcoholics" which would clearly indicate that they screened for this and I doubt that 1 glass a day was an indication for the study, more the point it is quite clear how to define and diagnose an alcoholic within the medical community - unless you would like to dispute this?, but the study doesn't specify - you tried to specify the study. In the science world, that's not how it works. I strongly suggest you take your own advice:

Please come back when you know what you are talking about. Yes, when you know anything about chemistry beyond google please feel free to rebut what I have said.

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
No - you're conservative hacks because you make things up without knowing what you are talking about.

What does this make you? I've shown that I'm a far shade from ignorant on the issues no, I think you have clearly demonstrated your ignorance of chemistry, physiology, and the scientific method quite well, while you've demostrated quite well that you are No, I believe that I have demonstrated what a proper education in biochemistry would deliver - a person knowledgable about biochemistry.

Are you a hack, or aren't you?

No, I am not a hack. I know my biochemistry and I think you ought to quit arguing before you look even dumber.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
...

Kid, or sir, or wtf ever you would prefer to be called: arguing the semantics of electron transfer mechanisms on an internet forum makes you look like an idiot. If I cared to, I could go get my chemistry books and refute what you've said, but I believe you've managed to discredit yourself with your post enough. You'd better recognize pretty quick that people here aren't all idiots, and some of them *gasp* have taken classes in college too. Some of us might even have more degrees than yourself. Some of us might not be interested in the semantics of every little thing, so try reading the argument as it's presented rather than trying to break it down to its most basic level. You must be a chemist.

 

[Genesys]

smart enough to be fluent in 2 [that i know of] languages.

not only that, but if he's so dumb, why is it he's engineering the VRC these days!? How is it he managed to dupe all of America into the Iraq war with faulty intelligence and lies if he's so damn dumb!?

And since he's dumb, does that make Gore a mentally incapacitated? After all, Bush 'stole' the election from Gore, right?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
...

Kid, or sir, or wtf ever you would prefer to be called: arguing the semantics of electron transfer mechanisms there are no "semantics" in science - it is clear, right or wrong, cut and dry on an internet forum makes you look like an idiot. If I cared to, I could go get my chemistry books and refute what you've said I seriously doubt that you could - what I have said is the factual truth, if your books say otherwise then you have very bad books or very bad professors or both, but nonetheless I actually challenge you to refute any the chemical arguments I have made to show how ridiculuously stupid it was of you to claim that water was an alcohol, but I believe you've managed to discredit yourself with your post enough only amongst people who have no idea what they are talking about and blinding ignorance about chemistry, such as, for instance, yourself. You'd better recognize pretty quick that people here aren't all idiots but chemically and scientifically ignorant yet willing to make outrageous claims with no proof only to slink away when their ignorance is exposed, and some of them *gasp* have taken classes in college too. Some of us might even have more degrees than yourself. Some of us might not be interested in the semantics of every little thing, so try reading the argument as it's presented rather than trying to break it down to its most basic level. You must be a chemist.

Here is my argument, on which everybody has fought me regardless of their actual knowledge of any of it:

1) Bush was an alcoholic for more than 20 years
2) Alcohol abuse has known harmful effects which include brain damage
3) The brain damage occurs in areas responsible for speech and judgement (the frontal and parietal lobes)
4) There are tests that show this damage consistently, such as PET scans
5) The pattern of verbal screw ups characteristic of Bush is completley consistent with alcohol induced brain damage

George W Bush likely suffers from brain damage as a result of his alcoholism. Any SAT exam that he took in his youth is irrelevant after 2 decades of alcohol abuse. He is likely to not be very intelligent and prone to fumble when speaking.

If you disagree with me on any of those points be prepared to defend your position - and defend it well with actual facts and science - because if you continue to make things up with reckless disregard for the truth I will continue to expose your ignorance.

How anyone can reasonably look at the man and see him as above average in intelligence is beyond belief and I believe demonstrates nothing more than partisan sentiment and not objective reasoning or analysis.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: esun
Since when is a 1280 on the SAT smart? I got an 1190 in 7th grade, so he's 100 points above a 7th-grader (and 240 points behind a 12th-grader). Of course, the SAT is a worthless test anyway. Personally, I consider a 1280 an average score for a college-bound student, and a low score for an Ivy-league or top 25 school person.

Your personal assessment means nothing.

I wonder if his SAT scores were fudged just like how he was accepted into the guard with an unacceptable score?

I wonder if your SAT scores are fudged.

One does not imply the other. You are claiming that anybody with a 10th percentile SAT who attends Yale is there because of their father's influence - this is an unwarranted assumption. They could, for example, have been accepted on the basis of affirmative action, or a profound talent with a musical instrument, or to bring a unique viewpoint to the student body.

Whatever the case it has been admitted by Yale that W was a legacy admit and did not earn his place for any kind of academic merit.

No, I am not claiming that. I am saying that if Bush doesn't deserve to go to yale, then 10% of the people there don't either.

By your own conviction, 1 out of 10 yale students is as "stupid" as Bush is. Why don't you call them out on it? Or is it ok for stupid blacks and hispanics to cheat the system, but not Bush?