How smart is Bush?

[CycloWizard]

Sir, you're so wrapped up in trying to prove that you're right that you missed the entire point - my comparison of water intoxication to alcoholic intoxication is an ANALOGY.

1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY
synonym see LIKENESS

You're in such a hurry to discredit me that you bypass all the valid arguments that I made and attack the shadows that you think are there. Guess what - feel free, I don't care. I don't think anyone else here cares about the semantics of whether water is REALLY an alcohol or just analogous to one. I guess you don't have much else to go on when your arguments are shot to hell though, so I'll let it slide this time. This is why I said you must be a chemist. It takes an engineer to see the world as a whole, where chemists try to microanalyze everything.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Sir, you're so wrapped up in trying to prove that you're right that you missed the entire point - my comparison of water intoxication to alcoholic intoxication is an ANALOGY.

1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY
synonym see LIKENESS

You're in such a hurry to discredit me that you bypass all the valid arguments that I made and attack the shadows that you think are there. Guess what - feel free, I don't care. I don't think anyone else here cares about the semantics of whether water is REALLY an alcohol or just analogous to one. I guess you don't have much else to go on when your arguments are shot to hell though, so I'll let it slide this time. This is why I said you must be a chemist. It takes an engineer to see the world as a whole, where chemists try to microanalyze everything.

Did you know that water is actually an alcohol (H-OH)? You can get drunk off it. It's called water intoxication.

That is not an analogy - that is hoping the person with whom you are arguing has no actual knowledge to back you up. This is so weak - "I didn't say it, I meant it as an analogy, you know, water is like an alcohol" when you said "water is actually an alcohol."

How about you admit that you were wrong? Seems like the right thing to do in the face of it.

Your valid arguments? Are you kidding me?

*cue some liberal coming in here to say how his daddy paid someone else to take the test for him*

Bush is smart, there's no denying it - even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. *cough* partisan hack *cough*. Not everyone who is smart is a good public speaker, and not everyone who is a good public speaker is smart. I think that's where people get thrown for a loop. [/b]

Nope, I just show that he is brain damaged.

I believe this was probably posted as a response to the recent thread asking how Bush got into Harvard and Yale. I don't see anyone but strawmen saying anything about its influence on our current positions in Iraq and WoT. [/b]

Bush didn't get into Yale on any kind of academic merit and we both know it. He was a legacy admit in addition to the favors he received from being the son of politician - Yale has even acknowledge that W was a legacy admit.

My point was I think the American public equates brains with being eloquent. Tony Blair would likely beat anyone in a landslide, regardless of what platform he ran on, just because he's an awesome speaker. I agree that it's obviously desirable to have both qualities, but I'll take smart over eloquent any day.

Except that you have never shown that Bush was actually smart. And I have given an extensive line of reasoing to indicate that he is probably brain damaged and that would account for him not being well spoken. Tony Blair, by the way, was never an alcoholic. Neither was Clinton, Reagon, Bush Sr - all of whom were miles above W in their abilities here. He is the weakest of the bunch and it is quite obvious.

You might think that, yet I'm guessing he's more successful in all of these ventures than you have been. *shrug* Does not address the issue and is an ad hominem
know for one that I've NEVER made a slip-up during a speech, particularly not when the weight of the world is on my shoulders. Maybe you're right. Does it really mean anything other than he's not as eloquent as maybe he should be? No.

One slip up? Have you been paying attention? It is not one it is a consistent inability to express any idea in any kind of articulate way - to the point that he refuses to take question for fear of looking foolish. Again, look at the company around him (Blair, Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr) and recognize that he is obviously the weakest one.
And for someone to keep crying "straw man" you seem to engage in an aweful lot of ad hominem.

Did you know that water is actually an alcohol (H-OH)? You can get drunk off it. It's called water intoxication.

This is when you start making things up that you have no knowledge of nor do you provide any actual proof to support your claims. Only after you have been show to be wrong do you resort to the ridiculous claim that you were making an analogy.

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 - yet another outrageous claim that you make for which you offer no proof and have no actual knowledge.

This is mostly an ad hominem attack directed at me. No real argument here.

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.

Here we see that you are clearly lying about your analogy claim - you are making scientific statements for which you have no knowledge nor do you offer any proof. You are wrong.

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?

I believe his point is that Bush wasn't a terribly smart person to begin with (below average SATs, especially for the Ivy league) and that Bush was the beneficiary of special favors, including a legacy admit to Yale. But again we see you go ad hominem rather than offer any kind of proof or argument.

As for me - no, I am not in fact a chemist. I was a double major in biochemistry and philosophy but didn't complete 2 courses necessary for the biochem major, although I do know my chemistry.

I think the point of all of this is that you don't offer any kind of argument for why Bush is intelligent - you make outrageous scientific claims for which you have no proof, distort your position when shown to be wrong (the whole "it was an analogy" nonsense), engage in extensive ad hominem attacks.

Bush is clearly not that intelligent. I think it is obvious that you are unwilling to consider the possibility that Bush is stupid and will not be reasoned with or persuaded regardless of the facts presented.

Do you know what I think? I think that I made you look stupid and your analogy nonsense is just an attempt to wiggle out of it. I think you are a partisan hack.

 

[CycloWizard]

First, don't type in other peoples' posts when you're quoting. I have no idea wtf I wrote and what you wrote. Second, you've bastardized the argument to the point that I don't even remember what we were trying to discuss previously. Third, water dissociates into the hydride cation (H+) and the alcohol anion (OH-), so it DOES act as an alcohol, whether or not it actually is is immaterial in this discussion or any other discussion unless you're a chemist. I'm a chemical engineer - I'm more concerned with how things work than the terminology attached to it. I knew you were a chemist at heart - your lack of integral thinking is demonstrative of the approach of nearly every chemist I know.

You claim that Bush's SAT was below average, when this is not the case. You claim that you doubt Bush was ever very intelligent, but fail to provide any indication as to what makes you think this. As I have stated numerous times in this very thread, I believe it's quite possible for someone to be smart but not eloquent, and vice versa. Some are both, some are neither, some are one or the other. Bush is not the best public speaker - I'll freely admit that. However, that doesn't mean he's an idiot, or that he's some kind of drug-ravaged imbecile. I know plenty of people that would piss themselves if they had to give a presentation to ten people - does this mean that they have brain damage from chronic alcohol abuse? No. My entire argument is that there are other factors that you're simply ignoring because it's expedient for your argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're in such a hurry to discredit me that you bypass all the valid arguments that I made and attack the shadows that you think are there. Instead of talking in abstractions please list the valid arguments. Saying they are there doesn't make them there Guess what - feel free, I don't care. I don't think anyone else here cares about the semantics of whether water is REALLY an alcohol or just analogous to one. Well I attempted to follow the argument closely. I didn't think it was really about chemistry and water but about a rather pretentious pedant, you, having his bluff called.I guess you don't have much else to go on when your arguments are shot to hell though, so I'll let it slide this time. Please state the arguments and their refutation. Again I'm not one to go on mere verbal claims This is why I said you must be a chemist. It takes an engineer to see the world as a whole, where chemists try to microanalyze everything. Hehe, engineers are famous for missing the forest for the trees and the real work of chemists is synthesis. I do think, though, you'd do well in creative fiction

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You're in such a hurry to discredit me that you bypass all the valid arguments that I made and attack the shadows that you think are there. Instead of talking in abstractions please list the valid arguments. Saying they are there doesn't make them there Guess what - feel free, I don't care. I don't think anyone else here cares about the semantics of whether water is REALLY an alcohol or just analogous to one. Well I attempted to follow the argument closely. I didn't think it was really about chemistry and water but about a rather pretentious pedant, you, having his bluff called.I guess you don't have much else to go on when your arguments are shot to hell though, so I'll let it slide this time. Please state the arguments and their refutation. Again I'm not one to go on mere verbal claims This is why I said you must be a chemist. It takes an engineer to see the world as a whole, where chemists try to microanalyze everything. Hehe, engineers are famous for missing the forest for the trees and the real work of chemists is synthesis. I do think, though, you'd do well in creative fiction

As usual, your post adds nothing to the conversation. for your efforts.

Oh, and ForThePeople, just so you know, science has a lot to do with semantics. If you've ever done research, you should know this first hand. It's all semantics until 20-30 years down the road, then it's accepted as fact.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
First, don't type in other peoples' posts when you're quoting. I have no idea wtf I wrote and what you wrote. Second, you've bastardized the argument to the point that I don't even remember what we were trying to discuss previously. Third, water dissociates into the hydride cation (H+) and the alcohol anion (OH-), so it DOES act as an alcohol, whether or not it actually is is immaterial in this discussion or any other discussion unless you're a chemist. I'm a chemical engineer - I'm more concerned with how things work than the terminology attached to it. I knew you were a chemist at heart - your lack of integral thinking is demonstrative of the approach of nearly every chemist I know.

You claim that Bush's SAT was below average, when this is not the case. You claim that you doubt Bush was ever very intelligent, but fail to provide any indication as to what makes you think this. As I have stated numerous times in this very thread, I believe it's quite possible for someone to be smart but not eloquent, and vice versa. Some are both, some are neither, some are one or the other. Bush is not the best public speaker - I'll freely admit that. However, that doesn't mean he's an idiot, or that he's some kind of drug-ravaged imbecile. I know plenty of people that would piss themselves if they had to give a presentation to ten people - does this mean that they have brain damage from chronic alcohol abuse? No. My entire argument is that there are other factors that you're simply ignoring because it's expedient for your argument.

You're right. It could be oxygen deprivation from choking on pretzel.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You're right. It could be oxygen deprivation from choking on pretzel.

retzel;

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You're in such a hurry to discredit me that you bypass all the valid arguments that I made and attack the shadows that you think are there. Instead of talking in abstractions please list the valid arguments. Saying they are there doesn't make them there Guess what - feel free, I don't care. I don't think anyone else here cares about the semantics of whether water is REALLY an alcohol or just analogous to one. Well I attempted to follow the argument closely. I didn't think it was really about chemistry and water but about a rather pretentious pedant, you, having his bluff called.I guess you don't have much else to go on when your arguments are shot to hell though, so I'll let it slide this time. Please state the arguments and their refutation. Again I'm not one to go on mere verbal claims This is why I said you must be a chemist. It takes an engineer to see the world as a whole, where chemists try to microanalyze everything. Hehe, engineers are famous for missing the forest for the trees and the real work of chemists is synthesis. I do think, though, you'd do well in creative fiction

As usual, your post adds nothing to the conversation. for your efforts.

Oh, and ForThePeople, just so you know, science has a lot to do with semantics. If you've ever done research, you should know this first hand. It's all semantics until 20-30 years down the road, then it's accepted as fact.

Hehe, yeah, like I'm gonna take the opinion of somebody who calls water an alcohol, naturally only by way of analogy, as an apt judge of what adds to a conversation. Yup, the last time a 2 year old insulted me I was hospitalized for a week. Take it easy on me there, tiger. And hot damn, I didn't know science had a lot to do with semantics. Would ya fancy that. I wonder if semantics has a lot to do with science then. Science and semantics sitting in a tree K I S S I N G. Dang if ya don't learn something new every day. I guess in 20 or 30 years I'll know what it means.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You're in such a hurry to discredit me that you bypass all the valid arguments that I made and attack the shadows that you think are there. Instead of talking in abstractions please list the valid arguments. Saying they are there doesn't make them there Guess what - feel free, I don't care. I don't think anyone else here cares about the semantics of whether water is REALLY an alcohol or just analogous to one. Well I attempted to follow the argument closely. I didn't think it was really about chemistry and water but about a rather pretentious pedant, you, having his bluff called.I guess you don't have much else to go on when your arguments are shot to hell though, so I'll let it slide this time. Please state the arguments and their refutation. Again I'm not one to go on mere verbal claims This is why I said you must be a chemist. It takes an engineer to see the world as a whole, where chemists try to microanalyze everything. Hehe, engineers are famous for missing the forest for the trees and the real work of chemists is synthesis. I do think, though, you'd do well in creative fiction

As usual, your post adds nothing to the conversation. for your efforts.

Oh, and ForThePeople, just so you know, science has a lot to do with semantics. If you've ever done research, you should know this first hand. It's all semantics until 20-30 years down the road, then it's accepted as fact.

Hehe, yeah, like I'm gonna take the opinion of somebody who calls water an alcohol, naturally only by way of analogy, as an apt judge of what adds to a conversation. Yup, the last time a 2 year old insulted me I was hospitalized for a week. Take it easy on me there, tiger. And hot damn, I didn't know science had a lot to do with semantics. Would ya fancy that. I wonder if semantics has a lot to do with science then. Science and semantics sitting in a tree K I S S I N G. Dang if ya don't learn something new every day. I guess in 20 or 30 years I'll know what it means.

Wow, you can be a real ass when you get pwned.

well, good luck with the whole ars-clown bit.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You're in such a hurry to discredit me that you bypass all the valid arguments that I made and attack the shadows that you think are there. Instead of talking in abstractions please list the valid arguments. Saying they are there doesn't make them there Guess what - feel free, I don't care. I don't think anyone else here cares about the semantics of whether water is REALLY an alcohol or just analogous to one. Well I attempted to follow the argument closely. I didn't think it was really about chemistry and water but about a rather pretentious pedant, you, having his bluff called.I guess you don't have much else to go on when your arguments are shot to hell though, so I'll let it slide this time. Please state the arguments and their refutation. Again I'm not one to go on mere verbal claims This is why I said you must be a chemist. It takes an engineer to see the world as a whole, where chemists try to microanalyze everything. Hehe, engineers are famous for missing the forest for the trees and the real work of chemists is synthesis. I do think, though, you'd do well in creative fiction

As usual, your post adds nothing to the conversation. for your efforts.

Oh, and ForThePeople, just so you know, science has a lot to do with semantics. If you've ever done research, you should know this first hand. It's all semantics until 20-30 years down the road, then it's accepted as fact.

Hehe, yeah, like I'm gonna take the opinion of somebody who calls water an alcohol, naturally only by way of analogy, as an apt judge of what adds to a conversation. Yup, the last time a 2 year old insulted me I was hospitalized for a week. Take it easy on me there, tiger. And hot damn, I didn't know science had a lot to do with semantics. Would ya fancy that. I wonder if semantics has a lot to do with science then. Science and semantics sitting in a tree K I S S I N G. Dang if ya don't learn something new every day. I guess in 20 or 30 years I'll know what it means.

Wow, you can be a real ass when you get pwned.

well, good luck with the whole ars-clown bit.

As opposed to yourself who needs no excuse?

Oops sorry, you just got owned.

Hey, forgive me, but why should I let the most demented determine who gets owned. And why doesn't one ass deserve another. Those who are particularly adept at being assholes sometimes profit from a look in the mirror. Oh and by the way any ware is spelled anywhere. Try it that way, it will make you look less stupid. Hehe. I seen ya spel it wrong in too differnet places. Welp, time for a bath. I got my hands all dirty.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

As opposed to yourself who needs no excuse?

yes, actualy, that was exactly what i was saying.

And why doesn't one ass deserve another.

lonlyness?

Oh and by the way any ware is spelled anywhere.

moon, that spells whiskey

Try it that way, it will make you look less stupid.

only actual literacy would do that, and it's not to likely that after six years of posting here that i'm going to gain that special talent any time soon.

Welp, time for a bath. I got my hands all dirty.

eww... been aflack $)!^&#


edit:

why should I let the most demented determine who gets owned.

was to easey.

 

[Moonbeam]

only actual literacy would do that, and it's not to likely that after six years of posting here that i'm going to gain that special talent any time soon.
-------------
Well I guess I can agree with that but I don't think you work at it very hard. I sometime have the suspicion you would rather be taken for mysterious or brilliantly abstract than simple and clear but perhaps ordinary. I'm not implying you are ordinary, but only that you might have that fear. Could be me, but I have a hard time often trying to figure out what you're saying. I have a lot of sympathy, though, because learning to right for me, such as I am able, was a tremendous struggle over a number of years. I simply could not say what I meant and had to write it again and again and again and again. It's easier now that I don't know anything.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I sometime have the suspicion you would rather be taken for mysterious or brilliantly abstract than simple and clear but perhaps ordinary.

hells ya. I?m not all that smart so I put on an air of what I like to think of as satirical amiability. But spelling ?anywhere? properly has little to do with that.

It's easier now that I don't know anything.

someday I?ll learn how to do that and become a good miniature golfer.

ars.:wine:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: marcello
Wow, he did ok on the SAT, impressive. That is the end all for intelligence tests. Only highschoolers who just took the SAT believe it is an accurate representation of one's intelligence. Eigen made a great point

I believe this was probably posted as a response to the recent thread asking how Bush got into Harvard and Yale. I don't see anyone but strawmen saying anything about its influence on our current positions in Iraq and WoT.

I can tell you that that score alone would not have gotten him into Dartmouth.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: marcello
Wow, he did ok on the SAT, impressive. That is the end all for intelligence tests. Only highschoolers who just took the SAT believe it is an accurate representation of one's intelligence. Eigen made a great point

I believe this was probably posted as a response to the recent thread asking how Bush got into Harvard and Yale. I don't see anyone but strawmen saying anything about its influence on our current positions in Iraq and WoT.

I can tell you that that score alone would not have gotten him into Dartmouth.

? how an anyone here defend the idea that bush wasn?t a privileged son? That?s like saying Kerry wasn?t groomed from birth to be a politician.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: marcello
Wow, he did ok on the SAT, impressive. That is the end all for intelligence tests. Only highschoolers who just took the SAT believe it is an accurate representation of one's intelligence. Eigen made a great point

I believe this was probably posted as a response to the recent thread asking how Bush got into Harvard and Yale. I don't see anyone but strawmen saying anything about its influence on our current positions in Iraq and WoT.

I can tell you that that score alone would not have gotten him into Dartmouth.

? how an anyone here defend the idea that bush wasn?t a privileged son? That?s like saying Kerry wasn?t groomed from birth to be a politician.

Bush is priveleged. That's how he got in. It happens, to Dems and Repubs. alike. Brains are not as important as money in many cases. The point is that the applicant didn't get himself in, but the applicant's father did. No big deal, but Bush going to Yale does not prove or disprove his intelligence.

Personally I think he is about as bright as a typical OT poster, which is somewhat above the norm.

I think it is what he has done with what he has that is wrong, rather than native intelligence.

I don't question his SAT score, just his fitness for office. If he was a peon like you or I, he would be relatively benign, but what he believes happens. That's what resonates with many people. He believes what he says, or seems to. The most effective leaders believe in what they are doing, which is not the same as saying what they believe. He makes up his mind on an issue, then says what he needs to say, then proceeds to believe it further because he said it. That does not mean he is a good leader, just effective in getting some people on his side.

IMO, Bush lacks character and wisdom, and has a nasty violent streak. He gets frustrated when things are difficult. He couldn't use his birthright to force the world to do what he wanted, so he insults and threatens and attacks. He lashes out and has little sense of proportion. He is impatient.

He is certain of himself. No self doubt. People who are wise are open to change. Some think that makes them "flip flop" (and I am not referring to Kerry who has another set of issues IMO). Well, if the captain of the Titanic had known what was coming, and flip flopped, the passengers of that ship would have been better off. Same with the Ship of State. When that Captain is so certain of his course, that he cannot bring himself to alter it no matter what, we passengers are in for a hell of a ride.

He did have a decent SAT score though.

 

[Red Dawn]

Bush seemed more intelligent prior to invading Iraq.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As usual, your post adds nothing to the conversation. for your efforts. Yet another ad hominem from you without any kind or argument

Oh, and ForThePeople, just so you know, science has a lot to do with semantics. If you've ever done research, you should know this first hand. It's all semantics until 20-30 years down the road, then it's accepted as fact.

Hahaha. You must be one of those red staters. "You liberals with your fancy books and science, don't you know that it is all made up as a conspiracy."

Science has absolutely nothing to do with semantics. Science is about testing hypotheses and systematically approaching the world in an attempt to explain natural phenomena. Sciene only includes what can be falsified, what can be tested, etc. It is not nor ever has been an exercise in semantics.

As an example consider your ridiculous claim that water is an alcohol. We can do tests to see whether or not it is true (such tests are described in an above post).

Your "science is a conspiracy" is just ridiculous.

Third, water dissociates into the hydride cation (H+) and the alcohol anion (OH-), so it DOES act as an alcohol, whether or not it actually is is immaterial in this discussion or any other discussion unless you're a chemist.

So much for your whole "I was making an analogy" claim. No, again, WATER IS NOT AN ALCOHOL. OH- IS NOT AN ALCOHOL ION, IT IS A HYDROXIDE WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROPERTIES FROM AN ALCOHOL.

Unless you are prepared to offer some proof of this ridiculous claim I suggest that you stop making it. And I will say that if you are really a chemical engineer yet so profoundly ignorant of chemistry I have no respect for your college. It's not one of those fundamentalist red state bible schools, is it, were evolution is evil and facts don't have any particular value? Your ignorance of chemistry is astounding and I highly recommend that you quit making things up without offering any proof.

You claim that Bush's SAT was below average, when this is not the case. You claim that you doubt Bush was ever very intelligent, but fail to provide any indication as to what makes you think this. As I have stated numerous times in this very thread, I believe it's quite possible for someone to be smart but not eloquent, and vice versa. Some are both, some are neither, some are one or the other. Bush is not the best public speaker - I'll freely admit that. However, that doesn't mean he's an idiot, or that he's some kind of drug-ravaged imbecile. I know plenty of people that would piss themselves if they had to give a presentation to ten people - does this mean that they have brain damage from chronic alcohol abuse? No. My entire argument is that there are other factors that you're simply ignoring because it's expedient for your argument.

Um, it was reported here that Bush's SAT scores were in the 10th percentile. I don't actually know so I am not claiming that (see the difference between me and you - I stick to what I know to be true without making outrageous claims for which I have no proof).

If, however, his SAT scores were in fact in the 10th percentile - and they would be under today's Ivy league system - then Bush is worse than 90% of those admitted the same year. I would categorize 90% of people doing better than you with being the same as "below average."

I failed to provide any indication as to what makes me think Bush is below average intellectually? Are you dense? BUSH IS BELOW AVERAGE INTELLECTUALLY BECAUSE HE SPENT 20 YEARS ABUSING ALCOHOL. I think I have offered more than ample proof of this claim, whereas you have yet to offer anything to support your position whatsoever.

"I know plenty of people that would piss themselves if they had to give a presentation to ten people" - are these people also the President of the United States. Whoops, generalizing from anecdotes, yet another logical fallacy of yours (and this from Mr. Strawman himself).

"does this mean that they have brain damage from chronic alcohol abuse" - no, it does not. You are implying reverse causation, another logical fallacy. The argument is that IF you abuse alcohol THEN you will damage the parts of your brain that control speech. The fact that somebody has trouble speaking does not imply that they have alcohol induced brain damage.

Let's try occam's razor.

Which is more likely. George W Bush has trouble speaking because:

a) he has admitted to long term alcohol abuse which is known to damage speech parts of the brain
b) he is afraid of speaking in large crowds (despite the fact that he has done so for most of his adult life)
c) whatever other reason you wish to invent

Which of the following do we have evidence of? Which is the most likely? Have you offered any kind of proof for your position?

My entire argument is that there are other factors that you're simply ignoring because it's expedient for your argument.

As I pointed out in an above post your entire argument is a series of ad hominem attacks, outrageous scientific claims, distortions to save face, and an unwillingness to consider that maybe George W Bush is, in fact, a poor speaker and less than average in intelligence because he was an alcoholic for 20 years and wasn't terribly bright to begin with.

When you offer any actual evidence or proof for your position maybe we will stop laughing at you. But continue in your "water is an alcohol" or "I never said it, I meant it in an analogy" and I will continue to expose you for the ignorant partisan hack that you really are.

 

[Caminetto]

My brother was State Senator in a state I can't mention. He gave birth to a son, Paul who was one the smartest children I have ever known. Paul hung with the influence crowd, and my brother sent him to private schools, where he gained more contacts and influence. My nephew liked to party with the folks who could afford recreational drugs etc., and sadly he eventually fried his brain. At times he could not speak clearly and had trouble following a logical argument to conclusion. My brother stated many times that Paulie?s IQ took a 100 point hit from his misspent youth. Eventually Paul could not cope with his pathetic life and what it had done to his family and others and turned to religion for help. With my brothers help, and his influential friends he became quite successful in later life, even though his thinking was stilled quite flawed and he has a fuzzy memory. As a born again person he was convinced by a smart politico to run for State Representative. He parlayed his "faith" to beat out an extremely qualified attorney who had been quite popular before Paul's attack dogs did a job on him.
How smart is Paul?

 

[lordtyranus]

Cyclo, you need to learn your chemistry.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

damn, you feeling ok Cyclo? Does it hurt to get owned repeatedly?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Caminetto
My brother was State Senator in a state I can't mention. He gave birth to a son, Paul who was one the smartest children I have ever known. Paul hung with the influence crowd, and my brother sent him to private schools, where he gained more contacts and influence. My nephew liked to party with the folks who could afford recreational drugs etc., and sadly he eventually fried his brain. At times he could not speak clearly and had trouble following a logical argument to conclusion. My brother stated many times that Paulie?s IQ took a 100 point hit from his misspent youth. Eventually Paul could not cope with his pathetic life and what it had done to his family and others and turned to religion for help. With my brothers help, and his influential friends he became quite successful in later life, even though his thinking was stilled quite flawed and he has a fuzzy memory. As a born again person he was convinced by a smart politico to run for State Representative. He parlayed his "faith" to beat out an extremely qualified attorney who had been quite popular before Paul's attack dogs did a job on him.
How smart is Paul?

At least he was smart enough not to kill himself after he realized what he had done to himself.

I fail to see what "intelligence" has to do with leadership. I know some very intelligent people that don't seem to have a lick of common sense. A leader has to be more then just intelligent. I would say the most important quality a leader should posess is good judgement. Irregardless of how intelligent he is, GWB seems to be lacking in the judgement department.

 

[cKGunslinger]

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?

The only way to "prove" that Bush's prior drinking directly causes his current 'verbal fumblings' is to somehow find video or accurate personal accounts of him speaking publicly to large audiences in his teen years, before he was an alcoholic. If such accounts show him to be an eloquent and capable speaker, then you can assume that something that occurred later in his life affected his abilities and you can hypothesize that it was his drinking. Until then, nothing you have posted 'proves' anything, as you are claiming.

The simple fact that you aren't even proposing a possible explanation, but are rather vehemently asserting that you are 100% correct with your repeated posting of "Fact. Fact. Fact..." just goes to show why you can't be taken seriously. Your quote above seems to indicate that you believe that the only reason anyone (or at least Bush) could ever have to being a poor public speaker is a history of alcohol abuse. That is, of course, absurd, but you have yet to deny that's not what you meant (despite the fact that is exactly what you wrote.)

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

The funny thing is, no one seems to be disputing the first 4 of your 'facts.' You have given evidence that links chronic alcohol abuse to brain tissue shrinking. That's not the issue, however. What we are (or at least I) am claiming is that you haven't posted a single bit of evidence that 'proves' #5 on your list. You've made this claim repeatedly in this thread, but where is that proof? Where are your links to 'peer-reviewed' and 'respected' medical studies than links brain size to speaking ability and intelligence?

You seem to enjoy frequently mentioning common fallacies, such as 'ad hominem' attacks on your character, but what about the obvious deductive/inductive fallacies you are demonstrating? Simply because you can post some arbitrary number of indisputable facts, does not mean that any conclusion you may draw has to be true, now does it?

I could care less about 'winning' this argument or whatever, my only goal now is to encourage (or force) you to retract some of your unfounded claims and admit that you may not, in fact, be the greatest and most infallible mind ever to have graced the internet, as you seem to enjoy presenting yourself as. If you were not so self-righteous, indignant, and pompous in your claims, you might have a better chance in convincing others to look at things from your perspective. As it stands, many are simply forced to 'tune you out' because of your presentation style. Now, you may choose to interpret this as simply another 'personal attack' on you, but I assume you it is not.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople
Hahaha. You must be one of those red staters. "You liberals with your fancy books and science, don't you know that it is all made up as a conspiracy."

Science has absolutely nothing to do with semantics. Science is about testing hypotheses and systematically approaching the world in an attempt to explain natural phenomena. Sciene only includes what can be falsified, what can be tested, etc. It is not nor ever has been an exercise in semantics.

Actually, I'm a researcher. I know this to be true. Let me know when you have similar experience to compare to mine.

So much for your whole "I was making an analogy" claim. No, again, WATER IS NOT AN ALCOHOL. OH- IS NOT AN ALCOHOL ION, IT IS A HYDROXIDE WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROPERTIES FROM AN ALCOHOL.

Unless you are prepared to offer some proof of this ridiculous claim I suggest that you stop making it. And I will say that if you are really a chemical engineer yet so profoundly ignorant of chemistry I have no respect for your college. It's not one of those fundamentalist red state bible schools, is it, were evolution is evil and facts don't have any particular value? Your ignorance of chemistry is astounding and I highly recommend that you quit making things up without offering any proof.

Wow, someone ran right up your dress. Tell me, what is the group is that reacts from an alcohol molecule. Ah, it's OH-, isn't it? So, water and an alcohol have the same functionality. Call them what you want - they can both react the same way. Besides, does it REALLY have anything to do with this issue? Or is Washington U in St. Louis just a 'red state bible school'?

Um, it was reported here that Bush's SAT scores were in the 10th percentile. I don't actually know so I am not claiming that (see the difference between me and you - I stick to what I know to be true without making outrageous claims for which I have no proof).

If, however, his SAT scores were in fact in the 10th percentile - and they would be under today's Ivy league system - then Bush is worse than 90% of those admitted the same year. I would categorize 90% of people doing better than you with being the same as "below average."

For Yale. I daresay that Yale has a slightly higher average than than the average school.

I failed to provide any indication as to what makes me think Bush is below average intellectually? Are you dense? BUSH IS BELOW AVERAGE INTELLECTUALLY BECAUSE HE SPENT 20 YEARS ABUSING ALCOHOL. I think I have offered more than ample proof of this claim, whereas you have yet to offer anything to support your position whatsoever.

"I know plenty of people that would piss themselves if they had to give a presentation to ten people" - are these people also the President of the United States. Whoops, generalizing from anecdotes, yet another logical fallacy of yours (and this from Mr. Strawman himself).

Funny, I didn't realize that being the president meant that you were automatically immune to nerves, pressure, and other problems that people commonly encounter when trying to speak publically. As for your 'proof' that Bush is below-average intelligence just because he drank for 20 years, I've not seen it. You showed that brain volume shrunk and recovered, not that intelligence changed. There is no necessary correlation between brain volume/mass and intelligence that I'm aware of. If you can show this, then maybe your theory will have some credence. Until then, it does not.

"does this mean that they have brain damage from chronic alcohol abuse" - no, it does not. You are implying reverse causation, another logical fallacy. The argument is that IF you abuse alcohol THEN you will damage the parts of your brain that control speech. The fact that somebody has trouble speaking does not imply that they have alcohol induced brain damage.

No, I'm implying that your reverse causation is incorrect. You said that chronic use of alcohol would lead to Bush-like speaking problems, did you not? As I've said before, I believe that there are other possibilities that you're simply ignoring because it's expedient for you to do so.

Let's try occam's razor.

Which is more likely. George W Bush has trouble speaking because:

a) he has admitted to long term alcohol abuse which is known to damage speech parts of the brain
b) he is afraid of speaking in large crowds (despite the fact that he has done so for most of his adult life)
c) whatever other reason you wish to invent

Which of the following do we have evidence of? Which is the most likely? Have you offered any kind of proof for your position?

I choose C - Bush is not an eloquent person. You're begging the question by assuming that your theory is correct without any substantiated proof. His lack of eloquence is not necessarily a result of brain damage, nor is it necessary that someone who has been a public speaker for a long time be eloquent.

As I pointed out in an above post your entire argument is a series of ad hominem attacks, outrageous scientific claims, distortions to save face, and an unwillingness to consider that maybe George W Bush is, in fact, a poor speaker and less than average in intelligence because he was an alcoholic for 20 years and wasn't terribly bright to begin with.

Quite the contrary - I've been stating all along that eloquence and intelligence are not one and the same. You simply choose to ignore it every time I've said it. You equate intelligence with speaking ability, which is a gross non sequitur. Tell me, if you're so opposed to ad hominems and personal attacks, how can you turn around and call me an idiot beceause I went to a 'red state bible school'? I'd hate to have to call you a hypocrite, but the shoe fits rather well in this case.

When you offer any actual evidence or proof for your position maybe we will stop laughing at you. But continue in your "water is an alcohol" or "I never said it, I meant it in an analogy" and I will continue to expose you for the ignorant partisan hack that you really are.

What have we learned here?
1. Water has the same functionality as an alcohol (though it may also act as an acid, which it does when it functions as an alcohol)
2. I never said "I never said it." The fact that this is an internet forum devoted to politics means that I try to avoid getting into the semantics of what exactly a molecule is called, as it has NO bearing on the topic at hand.
3. I may be an ignorant partisan hack - I'll acknowledge that.
4. You might be an ignorant partisan hack - you won't acknowledge that.
5. As soon as you get some scientific research under your belt, come back to me and let me know how black and white the science world really is or is not.

Oh, and here's a for everyone who wants to lecture me about 'getting owned' or not knowing my chemistry. Read what I've said here, then nibble on it for a while.

 

[esun]

Originally posted by: 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?

I'm sure you could. I'm using an example to point out how stupid it is to correlate SAT scores and intelligence. And I'm also pointing out that even if you were to correlate the two, a 1280 would certainly not be considered the score of an intelligent person. I'll try to be more literal next time.