Is America ready for a female President?

[wit>trope]

We keep calling the President the President or address him as "Mister President." Is that rude and arrogant also?

It's not rude or arrogant for *us* to do it. It *IS* arrogant for him to *INSIST* on it. What is SUPREMELY arrogant by the way are all those doctors who introduce themselves as "Dr so and so"

That's why in certain oriental languages which have honorifics, no one applies an honorific to themselves -- they are only applied to others. The very idea that in our Western culture self-application of honorifics is considered acceptable is just mind boggling ... I wonder if it was always this way (say 200 years ago or 400 years ago) or if it was some arrogant doctors who decided that this is the way it should be.

Titles are titles and it is perfectly in one's right to say he or she would like to be addressed as "Doctor" if they are, indeed, one.

You are thinking of it in terms of "rights" as opposed to whether it is really a good thing to do. I have the "right" to eat 6000 calories a day and become overweight and obese -- that doesn't make it a good thing for me to do.

 

[Irish Caesar]

yes he does. His IQ according to Google Answers is 129

http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=292960

Which being just 1 point below the mininum of 130 is close enough since his integrity makes up for it.

Condi's IQ is probably below 100 (IMO) -- we don't really know what her IQ is but NONE of her supporters -- and there are many -- tout any high IQ of Condi or high SAT score of Condi (from which an IQ can be derived as Google Answers did for Bush above) ... so it can't be TOO high sincce if it were her supporters would be touting it.

IQ from SAT scores? That's ridiculous. SAT and IQ scores measure two very different things: the ability to cough up words and do high school math, and the ability to solve various problems with various methods that require actually thinking instead of merely memorizing words and doing math that is taught in high school.

 

[wit>trope]

Irish before you say it's ridiculous remmeber a couple things:

1 MENSA allows people to be admitted based on SAT scores (at least those older than a certain date -- which would be past the time Condi and Bush had taken the SATs ... so the date is not relevant)

2 THe link was from Google ANSWERS -- this is not from a google search ... this is a separate service google has where you pay a small fee and Google gets an answer to your question for you ina professional way ... kind of like that computer in Steven Spielberg's AI movie that answers questions.

 

[bhsup]

They only think and say that because it is black and it gives the White Man a chance to prove he isn't racist (it's just like those whites who take every opportunity to praise say the intelligence or genius! of Thomas Sowell) ... this is not by the way something that I just say ... BLACK ACTIVISTS say these kinds of general things (in general I mean, not specific to these examples) ... how white people do things just so they won't feel guilty or just so they look good or not racist ... so that they can tell themselves as well as others that they are not.

You know what, I think YOU have some racial issues here. I am quite capable of determining who I think is and is not attractive without it being some attempt to appear non-racist. Condi is attractive, Oprah is not, Phylicia Rashad is, Winnie Mandela is not, and so forth and so on. Now I confess that Condi's political views and demeaner make her even more attractive to me, but that's not why I would vote for her. Again, I'd vote for Thatcher if I could in a heartbeat, and she's not exactly Audrey Hepburn.

 

[nihilistic]

I don't see how being "pro-choice" (which you listed) is related to being black. I honestly did not have any black connection in mind when I wrote she was pro-choice.

Oh, that's the one I missed. I meant to cut that one one. However, you haven't addressed the other ones.

yes he does. His IQ according to Google Answers is 129

http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=292960

Which being just 1 point below the mininum of 130 is close enough since his integrity makes up for it.

LMAO. Your justification is a forum quote? I can easily pull up some quotes that shows a lot more convincing than your quites that he is practically braindead.

Condi's IQ is probably below 100 (IMO) -- we don't really know what her IQ is but NONE of her supporters -- and there are many -- tout any high IQ of Condi or high SAT score of Condi (from which an IQ can be derived as Google Answers did for Bush above) ... so it can't be TOO high sincce if it were her supporters would be touting it.

Ok, let's assume that she got a completely bogus PhD degree. How the hell did she manage to become a provost at Stanford if she is as incapable as you claim? Do you know what a provost is?

Bush is described by liberal media as being willing to admit mistakes now about Iraq. So even liberal media contradicts you here.

Uhh, that's after how many years of clear denial? Did you notice that right after he admitted that Iraq did not have WMD that he claimed that the process in which we erroneously went to war in Iraq is not to be questioned? How is that not a cover?

Not at all. I would not mind Alan Keyes as President for instance ... actually that's the only black person I can think of I'd support for president.

Keyes, the person who ran on the message that his opponent is the antichrist? Do you support him because you support his "vision"? Or, do you "support" him because he has absolutely no chance of being elected?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Irish before you say it's ridiculous remmeber a couple things:

1 MENSA allows people to be admitted based on SAT scores (at least those older than a certain date -- which would be past the time Condi and Bush had taken the SATs ... so the date is not relevant)

2 THe link was from Google ANSWERS -- this is not from a google search ... this is a separate service google has where you pay a small fee and Google gets an answer to your question for you ina professional way ... kind of like that computer in Steven Spielberg's AI movie that answers questions.

And by following a couple of those links, I found my IQ to be 156. Now, I could be wrong, but that seems a bit high to me.

 

[nihilistic]

yes he does. His IQ according to Google Answers is 129

http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=292960

Which being just 1 point below the mininum of 130 is close enough since his integrity makes up for it.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a2Nw1DY_rDEs&refer=us

Bush, who in a 2001 commencement address at Yale, told students that he was proof that ``even a `C' student can become president,' was elected president of Delta Kappa Epsilon, known then as one of the rowdiest fraternities on campus.

This is by his own admission, you know?

 

[wit>trope]

And by following a couple of those links, I found my IQ to be 156. Now, I could be wrong, but that seems a bit high to me.

You are wrong unless you are like an old person.

The SATs have at least a couple times readjusting their scoring system so an SAT score of say 1300 from 15 years ago doesn't mean the same thing as 1300 today -- because 1300 today would actually have been something like 1100 or 1200 15 years ago ... a couple times they just chose to inflate veryone's scores. So if your IQ was found to be 156 based ono the conversion table for the old SATS -- then that wouldn't be right -- you'd need to subtract like 40 points from that or something like that making it more like 116. (and if your IQ were REALLY 156, you could have figured all this out on your own

Also I don't think MENSA accepts current SAT scores at all ... that may be due to a change of policy or (more likely) some kind of change in how the SATs are today versus many years ago.

Also you shouldn't question the expertise of Google Answers. Funny thing is that when I had the cite from Google Answers of Bush's IQ in my sig saying "Before you make fun of Bush for being dumb make sure your IQ is over 129 because that is what Bush's IQ is according to Google Answers" -- everyone stopped making fun of Bush as dumb all of a sudden.

 

[wit>trope]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a2Nw1DY_rDEs&refer=us

Bush, who in a 2001 commencement address at Yale, told students that he was proof that ``even a `C' student can become president,' was elected president of Delta Kappa Epsilon, known then as one of the rowdiest fraternities on campus.

This is by his own admission, you know?

What grade you get has little to nothing to do with IQ. Women get rather higher grades than men, but they have about equal or slightly lower IQ, on average.

 

[ironduck]

Woohoo, one lunatic goes on vacation and an even bigger lunatic makes a return. I guess this means Cierdan will be flooding the forums with his racist, sexist, religious drivel again..

Can we replace him with Zany please?

 

[Eukaryote]

I really don't care about thier gender. If a women was going for president and I was an american over the age of 18 I would vote for her if she was the right person for the job. I would never vote for a politcien simply because they were a women but not simply because they were a man either. I'm an equality guy.

 

[Cuivienen]

Women get rather higher grades than men, but they have about equal or slightly lower IQ, on average.

I'm sorry, this is simply not true. There is no evidence whatsoever that points to any correlation between gender and IQ let alone any sort of causation.

In any case, Bush also got at 1210 (570V-640M) on the SAT, which is about as impartial as various IQ tests. A 1210! I did better than him in 6th grade.

 

[The Yankee]

In any case, Bush also got at 1210 on the SAT, which is about as impartial as various IQ tests. A 1210! I did better than him in 6th grade.

But his integrity makes up for it...or whatever cop-out is used.

 

[The Yankee]

You know what, I think YOU have some racial issues here. I am quite capable of determining who I think is and is not attractive without it being some attempt to appear non-racist. Condi is attractive, Oprah is not, Phylicia Rashad is, Winnie Mandela is not, and so forth and so on. Now I confess that Condi's political views and demeaner make her even more attractive to me, but that's not why I would vote for her. Again, I'd vote for Thatcher if I could in a heartbeat, and she's not exactly Audrey Hepburn.

Hmm...I'm quite attracted to a lady that is a Republican, so maybe the same views don't do it for me.

But...if we were to consider looks in Presidents...how do we explain that we've had some less-than-stellar looking men?

 

[ironduck]

I looked at the SAT system on wiki and it said that it was recentered in 1995.. what was the average score before and after?

 

[wit>trope]

I'm sorry, this is simply not true. There is no evidence whatsoever that points to any correlation between gender and IQ let alone any sort of causation.

You're the one to mention causation, not me.

If you are saying that the IQ of women and men is statistically around the same -- my point still stands just as strong.

My point was that there was no causation between and little correlation between grades and IQ. My point had nothing to do with whether men or women had more IQ. (But you should read wikipedia's article on the subject to educate yourself)

Someone said Bush had low IQ because he had low grades.

I counter by saying -- let's go with your view -- that men and women have the same IQ yet they have different grades in school. This proves that IQ and grades are not causally related and are not strongly or closely correlated.

In any case, Bush also got at 1210 (570V-640M) on the SAT, which is about as impartial as various IQ tests. A 1210! I did better than him in 6th grade.

Cui, you don't seem to realize that the SATs are not static. It's not just what questions are on there but also how they "grade it" -- a couple times the ETS decided to "grade" the SATs on a curve, to in effect make everyone's scores higher. So unless you are the same age as Bush, your statement here is irrelevant. A 1210 back in Bush's day would be like around a 1400 today. (Btw, I got close to 1500 when I was in 7th grade so your accomplishment is nothing to cheer about)

Since you and a couple others don't seem to realize this (or comprehend it -- in your case I'm sure it's just lack of realizaition since I know you are a smart girl I will cite WIKIPEDIA:

The test scoring was initially scaled to make 500 the mean score on each section with a standard deviation of 100. As the test grew more popular and more students from less rigorous schools began taking the test, the average dropped to about 450 for each section. Various attempts to balance out this decline led to complex statistical anomalies. For example, in certain years it was impossible to get a score of 780 or 790 on a section; one could only get a 770 or below or an 800. To combat the trend toward declining scores, the SAT was "recentered" in 1995, and the average score became again closer to 500. All scores awarded after 1994 are officially reported with an "R" (e.g. 1260R) to reflect this change.

In 2005, the test was changed again...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#History_and_name_changes

 

[Cuivienen]

I looked at the SAT system on wiki and it said that it was recentered in 1995.. what was the average score before and after?

The old average was originally 1000 when the test was first implemented but had dropped to 910 by 1995. It was reecentered at 1000 and had, by 2004, climbed to 1080. The new SAT with the essay section was intended to be centered at 1500. When Bush took the SAT it probably was still centered at close enough to 1000; the shift downwards didn't really start until ~1970 when poorer school districts began to administer the test.

 

[The Yankee]

Cui, you don't seem to realize that the SATs are not static. It's not just what questions are on there but also how they "grade it" -- a couple times the ETS decided to "grade" the SATs on a curve, to in effect make everyone's scores higher. So unless you are the same age as Bush, your statement here is irrelevant. A 1210 back in Bush's day would be like around a 1400 today. (Btw, I got close to 1500 when I was in 7th grade so your accomplishment is nothing to cheer about)

Since you and a couple others don't seem to realize this (or comprehend it -- in your case I'm sure it's just lack of realizaition since I know you are a smart girl I will cite WIKIPEDIA:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT#History_and_name_changes

Condescending comments aside, I still don't understand what any of this has to do with a female candidate for President.

 

[Cuivienen]

You're the one to mention causation, not me.

If you are saying that the IQ of women and men is statistically around the same -- my point still stands just as strong.

My point was that there was no causation between and little correlation between grades and IQ. My point had nothing to do with whether men or women had more IQ. (But you should read wikipedia's article on the subject to educate yourself)

You were the one that made the statement that on average men had higher IQs than women. Certainly you also suggested that IQ and grades have little connection, which is true; I only disputed your sexist comment (which is why I quoted it), not your obvious one.

Someone said Bush had low IQ because he had low grades.

I counter by saying -- let's go with your view -- that men and women have the same IQ yet they have different grades in school. This proves that IQ and grades are not causally related and are not strongly or closely correlated.

That isn't what you said. I suggest that you reread your post more carefully.

Cui, you don't seem to realize that the SATs are not static. It's not just what questions are on there but also how they "grade it" -- a couple times the ETS decided to "grade" the SATs on a curve, to in effect make everyone's scores higher. So unless you are the same age as Bush, your statement here is irrelevant. A 1210 back in Bush's day would be like around a 1400 today. (Btw, I got close to 1500 when I was in 7th grade so your accomplishment is nothing to cheer about)

Of course they aren't static; I know, I took both the old and new SATs! However, comparisons can still be drawn, albeit within a relatively large margin of error of as much as 100 points. 1210 in Bush's day is nowhere near a 1400 today, however; you are simply pulling facts out of thin air. While the average score on the SAT dropped, was readjusted, then rose, an individual score than was not particularly low was only marginally affected - the main part of the 1995 readjustment was to make it far more difficult to score below a 400 on an individual section.

 

[ironduck]

Thanks cuivienen. How great is the range of scores? Just trying to get a rough picture here.. we have nothing like these tests over here.