Mitt Romney and the 47% who support Obama

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Originally Posted by Aldurin

Anyone who gets themselves into that high of a public office can reasonably be considered to be above-average intelligence.

You should not assume that anyone who finds themselves in a position of power is necessarily smarter than that guy next to you. In fact I believe that this kind of thinking is what makes a lot of people just blindly follow whoever has the nicer face. Like... they're in politics, they have to be the most cleverest minds on earth, only difference my vote makes is the face I have to look at on the television.

But as much as I like to rail on the guy, I don't think Bush can be as stupid as he made everyone believe. Which doesn't mean I think he's intelligent. Just educated enough.

On the election: It would only be the natural course of pretty much fucking everything for the US to finally move a little bit away from the terribleness. Which doesn't mean I think the democrats are a shining beacon of brilliance, it's just they're not the republicans. I'll only believe that after, like three consecutive non-conservative presidents.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

No, I'm pretty sure that's both, actually. Regardless of opinion on policies, you can't be elected president without being intelligent enough to work everything in your favor.

Unless he's actually mentally handicapped, you're actually being kind of terrible that you decide to pretend people that you don't like are retarded so that you can point out how terrible they are. It's unfair to people who are actually retarded to stigmatize them like that.

I said it wasn't an insult, his IQ is 89. Admittedly I'm not sure where the line is for mental retardation. I think it was 89 or 79. Point is he is well below average

and what do you mean he has to work things in his favor? His dad was president less than a decade before him, you think he had no pull with his party? Speech writers, campaign managers, public relations officers, they dont need to know how to work things in their favor. They pay people to figure that out for them.

Originally Posted by A Zarkin' Frood

I'll only believe that after, like three consecutive non-conservative presidents.

before our current democrat president we had a republican for maximum of two terms, before that a democrat for two terms, before that a republican ... I'm starting to notice a pattern.

[Marc v4.0]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

I said it wasn't an insult

You are disgustingly reprehensible and so full of yourself I am surprised you haven't exploded yet. NO OFFENSE

Originally Posted by Aerozord

his IQ is 89.

Citation needed

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Marc v4.0

Citation needed

Ok fine, since I was bored, here

Internet is full of informationNo I'm not actually citing a clearly bias site, and a wiki at that, but with how often people do just that i couldn't resist

[Marc v4.0]

No, seriously. Citation guddamn needed if you are going to be an insensitive jackhole and fling 'retard' around like an insult.

[pochercoaster]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

which I'd still rather have as our president than someone thats mentally retarded.

and no, thats not an insult or an exaggeration, Bush's IQ was pretty freakin low

If you have to note that something you said isn't an insult or an exaggeration, 99% chance it is an insult and an exaggeration.

Can we take a moment to acknowledge that IQ is an extremely poor, outdated measure of intelligence, one that is heavily steeped in racism and ableism? As such there is no point in bringing up someone's IQ, least of all as a criticism of them, which is insulting to people with mental disabilities. More often than not people seem to use low IQ as a way to dehumanize someone which is all kinds of fucked up. Like, I'm all for being anti-republican, but you shouldn't insult an entire group of people that are repeatedly erased and marginalized in the process.

[Meister]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

Ok fine, since I was bored, here

Internet is full of informationNo I'm not actually citing a clearly bias site, and a wiki at that, but with how often people do just that i couldn't resist

Requesting a citation on an uncited statement is perfectly good discussion behaviour and explicitly encouraged, and deserves a better reply than "citations lol right here you go ".

Your next post in this thread must contain either the requested citation from a trustworthy source or your honest confession that your statement was wrong. You can definitely provide one of those. Don't try and get around this by not making a post at all.

[Azisien]

I'm pretty sure an IQ of 90 is rather average as far as IQ test results go. They tend to weigh heavily on logic/math skills, ignoring other types of intelligence. I'll grant you logic/math are probably important skills to have if you're looking to lead nations, but that's why you just make sure your economics advisors are all IQ 130+.

[Meister]

Originally Posted by Azisien

I'm pretty sure an IQ of 90 is rather average as far as IQ test results go.

Well, yeah, since 100 is per definition the average. It's a bell curve.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by pocheros

If you have to note that something you said isn't an insult or an exaggeration, 99% chance it is an insult and an exaggeration.

Can we take a moment to acknowledge that IQ is an extremely poor, outdated measure of intelligence, one that is heavily steeped in racism and ableism? As such there is no point in bringing up someone's IQ, least of all as a criticism of them, which is insulting to people with mental disabilities. More often than not people seem to use low IQ as a way to dehumanize someone which is all kinds of fucked up. Like, I'm all for being anti-republican, but you shouldn't insult an entire group of people that are repeatedly erased and marginalized in the process.

This, exactly.

Bush made some terrible decisions, either due to incompetence, corruption, or a combination of the two, but it's unnecessary to go about doing this shit to make your point about it.