The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Indefinite imprisonment and military tribunals.
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5654
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Indefinite imprisonment and military tribunals.

As a bonus we keep them locked up even if they are innocent!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04890.html

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

The U.S. government is being the U.S. government. Nothing new here.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hope!
Oh, and Change!

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Vindicarre wrote:
Hope!
Oh, and Change!


What can you expect from someone with no prior experience, except how to win campaigns? He's like a child king who is controlled by his subordinates.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:03 am ]
Post subject: 

I can expect that people who make the observations that he's got "no prior experience, except how to win campaigns" and that "He's like a child king who is controlled by his subordinates" to also see that he's not doing "an ok job actually". It makes me wonder what people base their opinions on.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:05 am ]
Post subject: 

He's doing an ok job because he's too incompetent to either really mess things up or improve things. The country seems relatively stable and fine.

Author:  darksiege [ Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Vindicarre wrote:
I can expect that people who make the observations that he's got "no prior experience, except how to win campaigns" and that "He's like a child king who is controlled by his subordinates" to also see that he's not doing "an ok job actually". It makes me wonder what people base their opinions on.


I think that "he's doing an ok job actually" equates to "he has not **** a Chinchilla in the House of Representatives yet."

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:20 am ]
Post subject: 

Inexcusable.

Author:  Hannibal [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

So is Obama now a war criminal like Bush?

Author:  RangerDave [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Hannibal wrote:
So is Obama now a war criminal like Bush?

Yep.

*ETA: He was even before this latest move.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

RangerDave wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
So is Obama now a war criminal like Bush?

Yep.


I thought you were a big fan of Obama?

Author:  RangerDave [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Lex Luthor wrote:
I thought you were a big fan of Obama?

Just by comparison to most on this board. I think he's very intelligent and I agree with much (though not all) of his agenda, but on this issue he's been a complete moral failure. And legally speaking, I think he's committed war crimes through his detention and rendition policies as well as his refusal to investigate and prosecute officials who have committed acts of torture.

Author:  Corolinth [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Back when he was running his game about Hope and Change, everyone was a big fan. After winning that Nobel Peace Prize for Not Being George W. Bush, he slowed down his campaigning.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think Obama has very good intentions but he doesn't want to step on the toes of other people in his administration too much.

There's only one person who would say "No, you can't do that" all the time, and that would be Ron Paul.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

He is a savvy politician who knows what kind of rhetoric to say to get stupid people to follow him.

The only thing he did was highlight how many stupid people exist.

Author:  Khross [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

RangerDave wrote:
I think he's very intelligent and I agree with much (though not all) of his agenda...
It's funny that people keep saying Obama is very intelligent, when it's highly unlikely he's more than 1 Standard Deviation above the Population Median on an IQ Test.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah I also can't see Obama scoring really high on an IQ test. He's probably similar to Bush in IQ. Clinton was pretty smart though.

Author:  Khross [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Indefinite imprisonment and military tribunals.

Eh, George W. Bush's SAT Score was 1206 in the early 60s, which would put his Otis IQ in the 120+ range. And a 1206 in the 1960s is 1206 out of 1300, which is in the 98% percentile for combined scores. He's a lot more intelligent than people give him credit for being.

Author:  Vindicarre [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

...and Clinton's SAT was 1032.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Indefinite imprisonment and military tribunals.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/09/bara ... 16_18.html

Quote:
What the IQ guy failed to account for is the fact that Harvard University practices affirmative action. PBS Frontline reports: "The gap in SAT scores persists even at the highest levels of achievement. A study of the 1989 applicants to five highly-selective universities found that white candidates' average combined SAT score was 186 points higher than the corresponding SAT average for African American applicants."

Furthermore, the New York Times reports that "At the best schools, by contrast, efforts to diversify the student body translate into a 400-point bonus for minority students on the SAT tests."

That 98.8 ranking, according to the average Harvard LSAT, translates to an estimated 138 IQ, which is equivalent to a combined pre-1996 SAT score of 1310. That's pretty good, if not spectacular. However, note that this very same 98.8th percentile is only 1290 when taken directly from the pre-1996 SAT. [There is a dichotomy between the reported 98.8 percentile IQ equivalence on the LSAT and the 98.8 percentile on the pre-1996 SAT. Since Mensa accepts the 95th percentile on the LSAT as evidence that one is in 98th percentile in intelligence, it's clear that the SAT-IQ conversion, based as it is on a broader population sample, is the more accurate and 1290 is the correct figure] Due to affirmative action, however, one must reduce that score by at least 186 points. (400 seems extreme; I suspect the NYT article is talking about the new SAT, which isn't valid for the purposes of this comparison.) Thus, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt drops his score to 1104, which is equivalent to an IQ of 116. That's not bad, but it is significantly less intelligent than Hillary's 140 IQ, as well as being lower than George W. Bush's 125 IQ (1206 SAT).

Before one points to the fact that Obama ranked highly in his class, it's important to keep in mind that Bill Bradley was a Princeton Rhodes Scholar despite his 485 Verbal SAT and mediocre 103 IQ. Academic success, like every other kind of success, is just as much about hard work and determination as it is about intellectual firepower, but Barack Obama's supporters obviously shouldn't be attempting to make their case for him on the basis of what is, based on the available information, probably an IQ of between 115 and 120, only one standard deviation above the norm. Of course, this estimate is based on averages which don't necessarily apply to a single individual; Obama could lay the matter to rest by simply permitting his scores to be released to the public.

If his intelligence is so incredibly important, as some of his more visibly insane supporters insist, then surely the senator should inform us precisely how intelligent he is. Because he demonstrates his ignorance and a less-than-impressive intelligence nearly every time he opens his mouth despite his handlers' attempts to retroactively fix his statements: "The fact that we have reached a point where the Federal Reserve felt it had to take this unprecedented step with the American Insurance Group is the final verdict on the failed economic philosophy of the last eight years."

First, AIG didn't fail because of the economic philosophy of the last eight years. Alan Greenspan goosed the markets by expanding the money supply while Clinton was president and Ben Bernanke has further loosened monetary policy since. Second, that "unprecedented step" was taken with the American International Group.

UPDATE - Upset Obama admirers should note two things. First, a 116 IQ still indicates an intelligence that is well above average. It's hardly an insult. Second, I am not a Republican, much less a McCain supporter, and have never even voted for a Republican for president.

UPDATE II - Obama graduated from my mother's alma mater, where everyone takes the various college prep tests. He was not a National Merit Scholar, a National Merit Semifinalist or an Outstanding Participant. This indicates a ceiling on his SAT percentile at 96.9, which indicates a maximum possible SAT score of 1230 and maximum IQ of 129.


I was trying to find Obama's score (which can't be found), and found this. Khross I think you're right. This is a pretty funny topic.

Author:  RangerDave [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

Heh. If Bush's SAT score was indeed higher than Obama's and Clinton's, I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that SAT scores reveal very little about a person's intelligence.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

RangerDave wrote:
Heh. If Bush's SAT score was indeed higher than Obama's and Clinton's, I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that SAT scores reveal very little about a person's intelligence.


Why? Intelligent people have different priorities. Bush was very intelligent about convincing people to support going to war.

Author:  Khross [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

RangerDave wrote:
Heh. If Bush's SAT score was indeed higher than Obama's and Clinton's, I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that SAT scores reveal very little about a person's intelligence.
You just want to believe Bush was stupid; yet, you give Captain Oblivious a pass on all his speaking gaffes when he doesn't have a teleprompter. You give him a pass on bad policy, too.

I think George W. Bush was a horrible president. I think Obama is, astonishingly enough, actually a worse president. And I think to say either is stupid or has a low IQ belies the fact that they're President of the United States, and you are not. That said, why is it you agree with Obama's policies when they are Obama's, but disagreed so vehemently with those policies when they were George W. Bush's?

Author:  RangerDave [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Lex Luthor wrote:
Why? Intelligent people have different priorities. Bush was very intelligent about convincing people to support going to war.

I was mostly being tongue in cheek. I don't doubt that Bush was reasonably "intelligent" in the sense of raw potential brain power. However, I think a lifetime of arrogance and ease, coupled with a complete lack of intellectual curiosity, made him functionally stupid by the time he was elected President. (I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of some sort of degenerative condition that will come to light years/decades from now.) By contrast, whatever Obama's raw potential brain power may or may not be, the man has diligently stretched and worked his mind throughout his life and, as a result, is functionally brilliant by comparison.

Author:  RangerDave [ Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Khross wrote:
That said, why is it you agree with Obama's policies when they are Obama's, but disagreed so vehemently with those policies when they were George W. Bush's?

Can you give some examples? Not sure what you're referring to.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/