Ignorant Rightists Stunned As Bush's IQ Revealed To Be The Lowest Of Any President In The Last 50 Ye

G

Gary Palmer

Guest
As we all know, rightists have inferior intelligence to begin with, that's
why they shun higher learning and even in many cases stand against it
completely. Rightists are notorious for their gullibility, always falling for
transparent right wing propaganda and obvious lies. Due to their lack of
intelligence and subsequent lack of education, it is rare to find rightists
in intellectually taxing careers like physics and other sciences. That's
why they become politicians and trial lawyers, sucking from the taxpayer
trough until death.

Think Tank Study Of Last 12 Presidents Determines Bush I.Q. Of 91 Lowest

"The intelligence of our presidents has never been seriously scrutinized at
any time in our history until now. There is a widespread perception that
President G. W. Bush is not qualified for the position he holds. That
increasing awareness by the people has led to a study of the intellectual
ability of all presidents for the past fifty years. There have been twelve
presidents in that time, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush. All were rated
based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone wrote,their ability
to speak effectively, and a number of psychological factors. The conclusions
of the study, conducted by an independent think tank located in Scranton,
Pennsylvania were surprising. This think tank includes high caliber
historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and
psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner Levenstein, world-renowned
sociologist, and Professor Patricia A. Williams, a world-respected
psychiatrist. All members of the think tank are experts at being able to
detect a person's IQ from the criteria stated earlier. After four months of
research, these learned men and women have determined the IQs of each
president within a range of five percentage points. The IQs listed below are
the norms for each president.

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) 132 Harry Truman (D) 122 Dwight D. Eisenhower
(R) 174 John F. Kennedy (D) 126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 155 Richard M. Nixon
(R) 121 Gerald Ford (R) 175 James E. Carter (D) 105 Ronald Reagan (R) 099
George HW Bush (R) 182 William J. Clinton (D) 091 George W. Bush (R)

The non-partisan researchers who evaluated the twelve presidents determined
that the six Republican presidents for the past 50 years had an average IQ of
115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W.
Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six
Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton
having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the
lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. The margin of error is plus or
minus five percent. This study was initiated on February 13, 2001 and
completed on June 17, 2001. This study validated the widespread feeling of
people about the sitting president. President Bush was rated low because of
his inability to command the English language, his lack of any scholarly
achievements, and an absence of anything authored by him that would reflect
an intellectual effort." --"Jennifer Borenstein, Baskerville News Service,
6/28/01"
 
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:15:22 -0500, Gary Palmer <gpalmer@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>As we all know, rightists have inferior intelligence to begin with, that's
>why they shun higher learning and even in many cases stand against it
>completely. Rightists are notorious for their gullibility, always falling for
>transparent right wing propaganda and obvious lies. Due to their lack of
>intelligence and subsequent lack of education, it is rare to find rightists
>in intellectually taxing careers like physics and other sciences. That's
>why they become politicians and trial lawyers, sucking from the taxpayer
>trough until death.
>
>Think Tank Study Of Last 12 Presidents Determines Bush I.Q. Of 91 Lowest
>
>"The intelligence of our presidents has never been seriously scrutinized at
>any time in our history until now. There is a widespread perception that
>President G. W. Bush is not qualified for the position he holds. That
>increasing awareness by the people has led to a study of the intellectual
>ability of all presidents for the past fifty years. There have been twelve
>presidents in that time, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush. All were rated
>based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone wrote,their ability
>to speak effectively, and a number of psychological factors. The conclusions
>of the study, conducted by an independent think tank located in Scranton,
>Pennsylvania were surprising. This think tank includes high caliber
>historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and
>psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner Levenstein, world-renowned
>sociologist, and Professor Patricia A. Williams, a world-respected
>psychiatrist. All members of the think tank are experts at being able to
>detect a person's IQ from the criteria stated earlier. After four months of
>research, these learned men and women have determined the IQs of each
>president within a range of five percentage points. The IQs listed below are
>the norms for each president.
>
>147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) 132 Harry Truman (D) 122 Dwight D. Eisenhower
>(R) 174 John F. Kennedy (D) 126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 155 Richard M. Nixon
>(R) 121 Gerald Ford (R) 175 James E. Carter (D) 105 Ronald Reagan (R) 099
>George HW Bush (R) 182 William J. Clinton (D) 091 George W. Bush (R)
>
>The non-partisan researchers who evaluated the twelve presidents determined
>that the six Republican presidents for the past 50 years had an average IQ of
>115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W.
>Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six
>Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton
>having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the
>lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. The margin of error is plus or
>minus five percent. This study was initiated on February 13, 2001 and
>completed on June 17, 2001. This study validated the widespread feeling of
>people about the sitting president. President Bush was rated low because of
>his inability to command the English language, his lack of any scholarly
>achievements, and an absence of anything authored by him that would reflect
>an intellectual effort." --"Jennifer Borenstein, Baskerville News Service,
>6/28/01"


quite apart from the clear indications of humour, quick mind and
judgement in the casual interviews with bush....

the 'study' uses obviously invalid procedures/methods which casts
great doubt on the intelligence of the alleged 'think tank' and
sure evidence of their lack of appropriate knowledge or education

the deceit is even so poorly constructed as to miss the necessary
reference to the standard deviation which would be de rigueur in
any serious attempt

even as a satirical con it is so poorly executed that only a democrat
would be thick enuf to fall for it


--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
In news:MPG.221d7c55e4425e8898a247@news.individual.net Gary Palmer
<gpalmer@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As we all know,


.... you'll believe even the most transparent bullshit.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
 
Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> In news:MPG.221d7c55e4425e8898a247@news.individual.net Gary Palmer
> <gpalmer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As we all know,

>
> ... you'll believe even the most transparent bullshit.
>

But, doesn't everyone consume the ravings of Kurt Schumer as if his views
were Gospel?

Actually that's a bad example, the Gospels were really big on contradiction!

(suitable for Kurt Schumer)


More like getting 4 acid heads together after 38 years and describing
Woodstock around a Hookah full of Red Lebanese hash!

And the guys who wrote them weren't named Matt, Markie, Luke and Johnny
either! Not good for credibility at all.

Another reason why using the term "it's Gospel" is not such a good idea. :)
 
Back
Top