[quote]vroom wrote:
PMS is not only a women’s issue, btw. Men have hormonal fluctuations on a monthly basis. Look it up.
Keep trying. You know what the M stands for in PMS, right?[/quote]
Picky picky.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I have to disagree with you again. Neither Kerry or Bush are morons! If you had to debate either of them you would be crushed!
OK, so they’re not morons by your standards. They sure are by mine. Kerry for reason of his moronic campaign tactics, Bush for the same, plus his moronic policies as president.
As for who would get crushed in a debate, it’s sheer speculation on your part. You don’t know me, and nobody ever saw GWB perform in open debate.[/quote]
I know enough about each of them to know that they would be quite comfortable and commanding debating the typical message board participant on T-Nation.
No slam against you, they are pro’s, don’t let the negative press on either of them fool you. They know the issues of the day and as I stated…would crush you!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe, Joe, Joe. You know damned well that PMS is a women’s issue. You also know damned well accusing someone around here of having PMS is an insult.
Don’t try to backpedal your way out of it…
Own up to it. Be proud of your style of insulting me at every single opportunity you have, whether or not it is supposedly a joke at times.
Now, if you wouldn’t complain that I’m attacking you all the time, I’d simply strike back and attack you for it.
As it is, I’m reduced to simply pointing this out, because you, Sasquatch and Zeb are in a mode where you think it is interesting to the world to point out “my behavior” instead of discussing issues.
So be it.[/quote]
Since you mentioned my name I will comment.
The only reason that I ever brought up your behavior is because you went through a phase where you couldn’t seem to type a post without personally insulting someone.
You called yourself a “bastard” and more or less were bragging about your bad behavior and attacking people over the Internet.
Um…it just wasn’t cool.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
Joe, Joe, Joe. You know damned well that PMS is a women’s issue. You also know damned well accusing someone around here of having PMS is an insult.
Don’t try to backpedal your way out of it…
Own up to it. Be proud of your style of insulting me at every single opportunity you have, whether or not it is supposedly a joke at times.
Now, if you wouldn’t complain that I’m attacking you all the time, I’d simply strike back and attack you for it.
As it is, I’m reduced to simply pointing this out, because you, Sasquatch and Zeb are in a mode where you think it is interesting to the world to point out “my behavior” instead of discussing issues.
So be it.
Since you mentioned my name I will comment.
The only reason that I ever brought up your behavior is because you went through a phase where you couldn’t seem to type a post without personally insulting someone.
You called yourself a “bastard” and more or less were bragging about your bad behavior and attacking people over the Internet.
Um…it just wasn’t cool.
[/quote]
Zeb, how is that any different than what he’s doing now, except that his insults are much better veiled and couched now.
He still calls himself a bastard, he just gets angry when you agree with him.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
ZEB wrote:
100meters:
According to both parties a few years back, Social Security would be bankrupt by 2036.
Now that Bush is trying to fix the problem, the democrats say there is none.
Politics at it’s very lowest!
Wrong… They obviously don’t say none, they say private accts aren’t the solution, note Bush now concedes, bye bye private accts.
It’s funny how the AARP has private accounts…but doesn’t want ME to be able to.
Fuckhead liars, all.[/quote]
You mean they offer an additional retirement acct that has nothing to do with Social Securtiy does it Joe? So these “liars” are actually having the nerve to invest some additional money into investments, while being able to rely on the safety of social security? Those bastards! Oh wait, what’s that millions of americans have options just like that—what? My 401k is like that?
Damn you Newsmax.com for misleading me again!!
[quote]Zeb, how is that any different than what he’s doing now, except that his insults are much better veiled and couched now.
He still calls himself a bastard, he just gets angry when you agree with him. [/quote]
Joe, at least I know and admit I’m a bastard.
Anyway, according to your criteria politely disagreeing with someone is an insult.
I don’t know where you get off throwing stones, at least I’m not a coward who hides insults behind humor.
Yes, that is an insult… and not veiled, just so you can perhaps tell the difference.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jodgey wrote:
Who gives a shit? ZEB, dont you have some pull ups to do?
Are you one of those johnny one notes who just can’t get beyond the fact that I can do more Pull-ups than you? Otherwise, why would you bring that up on this thread?
Hey…maybe you better get back to a thread where you are more comfortable like the “T-Nation shaker” thread.
[/quote]
No. When I saw this thread, I had some thought that this was going to have a shred of interesting information. But, I realized you started this thread, and I remembered that all you do is try to stir the pot with obstinance and arrogance. Oh, don’t forget to call me a dumb liberal, and that is why I can’t see the brilliance of arguing the presidential candidates grades in college.
I brought up the pull ups bit because you wrote that long winded thread about teaching people how to do pull ups. You took to the hybris of being a pull up zen master.
I enjoyed watching you get your ass handed to you on the board when you disagreed with Pavel on his philosophy
of practicing your goals.
That was why I brought up the pull ups.
Do you ever stop and look at what you are saying? I don’t think so.
jodgey wrote:
“No. When I saw this thread, I had some thought that this was going to have a shred of interesting information. But, I realized you started this thread, and I remembered that all you do is try to stir the pot with obstinance and arrogance. Oh, don’t forget to call me a dumb liberal, and that is why I can’t see the brilliance of arguing the presidential candidates grades in college.”
Well, jodgey. Welcome to the arena!!!
Just wanted to start out by calling you a dumb liberal.
With that being said, it usually is a good idea to read all the posts in a thread before calling it worthless.
For instance, you missed the part where we stated that the college grades don’t really mean anything to the Republicans. What is important is that you “dumb” liberals spend all your time ripping on Bush’s intelligence. When your candidates: gore and kerry come up short to W in measurements of intelligence, we point it out. We have a good laugh at your expense.
Let me state it again: This matters because kerry wouldn’t release it during the campaign. He allowed himself to be portrayed as the “intellectual.” Your pals spent the whole time discussing W’s intelligence.
Imagine this being released in August of 2004.
“I brought up the pull ups bit because you wrote that long winded thread about teaching people how to do pull ups. You took to the hybris of being a pull up zen master.
I enjoyed watching you get your ass handed to you on the board when you disagreed with Pavel on his philosophy
of practicing your goals.
That was why I brought up the pull ups.”
What thread is this under. I’ll have to go after Pavel.
Again, welcome!!!
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Let me state it again: This matters because kerry wouldn’t release it during the campaign. He allowed himself to be portrayed as the “intellectual.” [/quote]
GASP The horror!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Let me state it again: This matters because kerry wouldn’t release it during the campaign. He allowed himself to be portrayed as the “intellectual.”
GASP The horror![/quote]
Watch this:
AGREED!
The gist of the thread may slightly dispell some Bush/Kerry mythology, but the overreaction to the importance of this data is unbelievable. It’s mid 2005–let’s let 2000 and 2004 go.
2006 and 2008 are much better discussion fodder at this point than this rehash nonsense.
[quote]jodgey wrote:
No. When I saw this thread, I had some thought that this was going to have a shred of interesting information. But, I realized you started this thread, and I remembered that all you do is try to stir the pot with obstinance and arrogance. Oh, don’t forget to call me a dumb liberal, and that is why I can’t see the brilliance of arguing the presidential candidates grades in college.
I brought up the pull ups bit because you wrote that long winded thread about teaching people how to do pull ups. You took to the hybris of being a pull up zen master.
I enjoyed watching you get your ass handed to you on the board when you disagreed with Pavel on his philosophy
of practicing your goals.
That was why I brought up the pull ups.
Do you ever stop and look at what you are saying? I don’t think so.[/quote]
Well first of all I’m sorry that you are jealous of my Pull-up thread. Most people took that thread for what it was. It was a sincere post to help those who want to raise their Pull-up numbers. A few others became insanely jealous. Why, I’m not sure, but then again there is no accounting for the way kids think 
You see here at T-Nation everyone tries to contribute whatever they can to help other people out. At least that’s why I’m here relative to the training threads. I don’t give any advice on Deadlifting or Squats. While I like both movements I don’t consider myself good enough to give a whole lot of advice to anyone but perhaps a beginner. Not so with Pull-ups.
I got quite a few PM’s regarding that Pull-up thread. I helped a great many people increase their numbers. And even though it was written quite a while ago I still get training questions regarding Pull-ups. And I still try to help. Do you try to help others on this forum, or are you pretty much a know nothing jealous dweeb? I’m asking.
Let’s see what other blather did you write? I want to make sure that you get all of the attention that you crave. That way you might not kick the neighbors dog, or spit at people when they walk past your house, or other immature things that kids do when they are stressed.
I do disagree with Pavel, you can take that back to your other “comrades” and tell them Zeb said it! If any of your “comrades” would like to debate me relative to my Pull-up techniques or even more…let me know…I’m game. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Let’s see what else?
If you don’t like the thread I began, or how I feel politically please go elsewhere, it’s a big forum. Either that or put forth some sort of coherent post. If you don’t like me learn to live with it as I’m not going anywhere and I will be talking about Pull-ups quite a bit more as time goes by. Not because you don’t like it, but because I can be of service to those who are in need.
Don’t get me wrong, now that I know you don’t like it that will give me a little added pleasure.
One more small piece of advice: Instead of simply throwing your rotten tomatos why don’t you actually try to help someone? Then again you would have to actually know something to do that huh?
Bye for now kid!
Zeb
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jodgey wrote:
I do disagree with Pavel, you can take that back to your other “comrades” and tell them Zeb said it! If any of your “comrades” would like to debate me relative to my Pull-up techniques or even more…let me know…I’m game. Otherwise, what’s the point?
[/quote]
Just for the record, I still think the pull up thread is every bit as valuable as some of the threads that seem to get bumped.And I appreciate Zeb taking the time to do it, and the time to help people.
-
Neither Kerry nor Bush came across well on any debates that I saw, but for different reasons. The only person I saw who was able to form a sentence that was clear, succinct, easy to understand, and correctly formed was Nader. Completely separate from the politics, he was the only one who seemed capable of communicating like his brain was functioning correctly.
-
Americans have a very unique definition of “far left”.
Sorry for being a Johnny-come lately to this thread, but my question is this: if their grades were almost exactly the same, how does Kerry manage to appear so much smarter?
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Sorry for being a Johnny-come lately to this thread, but my question is this: if their grades were almost exactly the same, how does Kerry manage to appear so much smarter?[/quote]
This is me trying to be serious, just so you know!
I read a piece the other day and I’ve forgotten where, but the thrust of it was that Kerry appears smarter because he uses large words–although not always correctly–and he has these grand concepts.
The woman who wrote the article or was being quoted…I forget, sorry, was some sort of PhD expert on the issue. Said that as long as you could confuse people about what you’re saying, and you’re in some kind of ‘position’, they’ll think you must be smart smarter smartest.
GWB doesn’t try to do that–IMO b/c he’s much more comfortable with himself.
If you care at all I’ll try to find the article.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Sorry for being a Johnny-come lately to this thread, but my question is this: if their grades were almost exactly the same, how does Kerry manage to appear so much smarter?
This is me trying to be serious, just so you know!
I read a piece the other day and I’ve forgotten where, but the thrust of it was that Kerry appears smarter because he uses large words–although not always correctly–and he has these grand concepts.
The woman who wrote the article or was being quoted…I forget, sorry, was some sort of PhD expert on the issue. Said that as long as you could confuse people about what you’re saying, and you’re in some kind of ‘position’, they’ll think you must be smart smarter smartest.
GWB doesn’t try to do that–IMO b/c he’s much more comfortable with himself.
If you care at all I’ll try to find the article.[/quote]
I think the woman who wrote that article is an idiot. It is nowhere near that complicated. People judge others by what they see and hear. Period. Bush comes across less educated because he doesn’t speak well and he doesn’t seem to even grasp all of the topics he brings up himself (especially during that debate). The debates between Kerry and Bush was really the first time the general public had heard either one confront each other without edited sound bytes. Those who voted for him seem to want to put Bush on a pedestal. The same doesn’t even happen in reverse with regards to Kerry. Most acknowledge that both were weak candidates. I guess it makes “republicans” feel better to pretend as if everyone else in the world is crazy for seeing a man who made a constant “C” average all of the way through school and can’t pronounce “NUCLEAR” as a genius. The rest of the world doesn’t seem to be so easily duped. But hey, if that helps you sleep at night…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Sorry for being a Johnny-come lately to this thread, but my question is this: if their grades were almost exactly the same, how does Kerry manage to appear so much smarter?
This is me trying to be serious, just so you know!
I read a piece the other day and I’ve forgotten where, but the thrust of it was that Kerry appears smarter because he uses large words–although not always correctly–and he has these grand concepts.
The woman who wrote the article or was being quoted…I forget, sorry, was some sort of PhD expert on the issue. Said that as long as you could confuse people about what you’re saying, and you’re in some kind of ‘position’, they’ll think you must be smart smarter smartest.
GWB doesn’t try to do that–IMO b/c he’s much more comfortable with himself.
If you care at all I’ll try to find the article.
I think the woman who wrote that article is an idiot. It is nowhere near that complicated. People judge others by what they see and hear. Period. Bush comes across less educated because he doesn’t speak well and he doesn’t seem to even grasp all of the topics he brings up himself (especially during that debate). The debates between Kerry and Bush was really the first time the general public had heard either one confront each other without edited sound bytes. Those who voted for him seem to want to put Bush on a pedestal. The same doesn’t even happen in reverse with regards to Kerry. Most acknowledge that both were weak candidates. I guess it makes “republicans” feel better to pretend as if everyone else in the world is crazy for seeing a man who made a constant “C” average all of the way through school and can’t pronounce “NUCLEAR” as a genius. The rest of the world doesn’t seem to be so easily duped. But hey, if that helps you sleep at night…
[/quote]
Ummm…Prof?
Jimmy Carter–who was a nuclear technician type-pronounced it nucular too.
And John Kerry’s grades were below GWB’s, so what’s your point?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Sorry for being a Johnny-come lately to this thread, but my question is this: if their grades were almost exactly the same, how does Kerry manage to appear so much smarter?
This is me trying to be serious, just so you know!
I read a piece the other day and I’ve forgotten where, but the thrust of it was that Kerry appears smarter because he uses large words–although not always correctly–and he has these grand concepts.
The woman who wrote the article or was being quoted…I forget, sorry, was some sort of PhD expert on the issue. Said that as long as you could confuse people about what you’re saying, and you’re in some kind of ‘position’, they’ll think you must be smart smarter smartest.
GWB doesn’t try to do that–IMO b/c he’s much more comfortable with himself.
If you care at all I’ll try to find the article.
I think the woman who wrote that article is an idiot. It is nowhere near that complicated. People judge others by what they see and hear. Period. Bush comes across less educated because he doesn’t speak well and he doesn’t seem to even grasp all of the topics he brings up himself (especially during that debate). The debates between Kerry and Bush was really the first time the general public had heard either one confront each other without edited sound bytes. Those who voted for him seem to want to put Bush on a pedestal. The same doesn’t even happen in reverse with regards to Kerry. Most acknowledge that both were weak candidates. I guess it makes “republicans” feel better to pretend as if everyone else in the world is crazy for seeing a man who made a constant “C” average all of the way through school and can’t pronounce “NUCLEAR” as a genius. The rest of the world doesn’t seem to be so easily duped. But hey, if that helps you sleep at night…
[/quote]
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/ campaign/24points.html?ex=1256356800&en=50a1bcbb16e7cf21&ei= 5090&partner=rssuserland
POLITICAL POINTS
Secret Weapon for Bush?
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: October 24, 2004
Illustration by Stephen Savage
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints & Permissions
MULTIMEDIA
Graphic: The Libertarian Factor
READERS’ OPINIONS
Forum: Join a Discussion on The 2004 Presidential Election
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
??Topics
Alerts
Bush, George W
Kerry, John F
Presidential Elections (US)
o Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.
That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush’s SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120’s, about 10 points lower than Al Gore’s.
Mr. Kerry’s SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates’ military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.
Mr. Bush’s score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120’s, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry’s I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer’s extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.
Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. “People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can’t understand,” Professor Gottfredson said.
Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in “Doonesbury,” that Mr. Bush’s I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.
You might expect Kerry campaign officials, who have worried that their candidate’s intellectual image turns off voters, to quickly rush out a commercial trumpeting these new results, but for some reason they seem to be resisting the temptation.
Upon hearing of their candidate’s score, Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the senator, said merely: “The true test is not where you start out in life, but what you do with those God-given talents. John Kerry’s 40 years of public service puts him in the top percentile on that measure.”
A Nader Nibble From the Right
The commercial made its national debut on Thursday on the Fox News Channel, aimed directly at Mr. Bush’s Republican base. It starts with a middle-aged man disgustedly dropping his Wall Street Journal on the kitchen table. “What kind of conservative runs half-trillion-a-year deficits? Gets us into an unwinnable war?” he asks his wife, but adds helplessly, “I can’t vote for Kerry.”
“Then don’t,” she says, cheerily suggesting an alternative who is not quite yet a household name: Michael Badnarik, a computer consultant from Austin, Tex.
Mr. Badnarik is the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, which says he could “Naderize” Mr. Bush. A recent Zogby/Reuters national poll showed him tied with Ralph Nader at one percentage point each - not much, but possibly critical. Unlike Mr. Nader, Mr. Badnarik is on the ballot of every battleground state except New Hampshire.
“If we have a rerun of Florida 2000 in Pennsylvania, Michael Badnarik could be the kingmaker by drawing independent and Republican votes from Bush,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the 2004 Election Project at the Humphrey Institute of the University of Minnesota, which has been tracking third-party candidates.
Mr. Badnarik, reached by telephone on Thursday while campaigning in Michigan, said that polls commissioned by his campaign showed him at 2 percent in Wisconsin, 3 percent in Nevada and 5 percent in New Mexico.
He dispatched quickly with most of the major campaign issues. Foreign policy? “I would be bringing our troops home from Iraq and 135 other countries.” Taxes? “I would eliminate the I.R.S. completely.” Health care? “Of all the things I want the government out of, health care is probably the first thing.”
The only issue he ducked was abortion. Although the Libertarian platform supports abortion rights, he said, the party is almost evenly divided on the question. “It’s not a religious issue,” Mr. Badnarik explained. “It’s a property-rights issue: at what point does the baby take ownership of its own body? I do not have a clear-cut answer.”
Vote Your Way to a Fat Wallet
The most widely advertised lie this election is probably the one coming from the earnest campaigns imploring you to turn out on Election Day. Your vote matters, they keep saying, but it doesn’t. No matter what state you live in, you have a much better chance of being struck by lightning on the way to the polls than of casting a decisive ballot in the presidential election.
Then why will Americans spend millions of valuable hours casting individually meaningless votes? Are these commercials deluding them into violating the basic economic principle of self-interest?
Not at all, says Robert Frank, a Cornell economist who analyzes such supposedly irrational behavior in his book, “What Price the Moral High Ground?” Most people vote, Professor Frank says, not because they fail to grasp the logic of self-interest, but rather because they consider it their civic duty to do so, and that is a profitable instinct.
It may seem odd that the people most likely to vote are the most affluent and most educated, presumably the ones whose time is most valuable and who understand most clearly how little their vote means. But their enthusiasm for voting is one reason they are affluent, Professor Frank says. People who like to engage in civic-minded activities tend to do better in business because they are perceived as trustworthy, he says.
“We’re pretty good judges of character,” Professor Frank said, “and none of us would ever want to hire the homo-economicus stereotype that populates most economic models.” So even if your vote doesn’t matter in the election, it could pay off in other ways.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Sorry for being a Johnny-come lately to this thread, but my question is this: if their grades were almost exactly the same, how does Kerry manage to appear so much smarter?[/quote]
I think is an interesting point.
Because someone looks smarter are they actually smarter? Could it be that intelligence, has many facets to it?
Certainly, presentation, poise and speaking ability could be part of it, but I think there is much more. For example, how a person relates to other people, or being “socially smart” could be one factor.
I really think that there are many different ways that one can measure intelligence.
John Kerry is absolutely a bright individual (which is more than the Bush haters will say about our President). I think that if any of the people on this forum who insult the Presidents intelligence actually sat down one on one to speak with him they would be impressed.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Ummm…Prof?
Jimmy Carter–who was a nuclear technician type-pronounced it nucular too.
And John Kerry’s grades were below GWB’s, so what’s your point?
[/quote]
The point was already stated. BOTH candidates were sub-par. Did you misread the entire post? When Carter was president, there was generally less education from most Americans. The times have changed. That is like randomly choosing presidents and comparing directly to today’s standards in all areas. I am sure that Carter would understand his points being made in a debate and be able to articulate them better. Since I was not alive then, however, I wouldn’t know the difference.