Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
felix
ParticipantI don’t know whether intellect was weighed as a factor or not. I suspect intellect was to a certain degree a factor. There is no doubt Obama was popular and even then a good speaker. However, intellect itself clearly was not the overriding qualification. And I don’t think anyone would say Obama was the best student or intellect in the running.
Also Obama wasn’t selected, he was elected. Albeit elected by the other 61 editors. Imo a selection when not made exclusively on merit would be arguably be even more suspect. Anyway, yes, elections are popularity contests.
From what I understand at the time Harvard was very interested in easing racial tensions. In fact, the first black tenured professor resigned over the situation there. So the election of the first black editor of law review would and did help ease some of those tensions.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/
ParticipantI don’t know whether intellect was weighed as a factor or not. I suspect intellect was to a certain degree a factor. There is no doubt Obama was popular and even then a good speaker. However, intellect itself clearly was not the overriding qualification. And I don’t think anyone would say Obama was the best student or intellect in the running.
Also Obama wasn’t selected, he was elected. Albeit elected by the other 61 editors. Imo a selection when not made exclusively on merit would be arguably be even more suspect. Anyway, yes, elections are popularity contests.
From what I understand at the time Harvard was very interested in easing racial tensions. In fact, the first black tenured professor resigned over the situation there. So the election of the first black editor of law review would and did help ease some of those tensions.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/
ParticipantI don’t know whether intellect was weighed as a factor or not. I suspect intellect was to a certain degree a factor. There is no doubt Obama was popular and even then a good speaker. However, intellect itself clearly was not the overriding qualification. And I don’t think anyone would say Obama was the best student or intellect in the running.
Also Obama wasn’t selected, he was elected. Albeit elected by the other 61 editors. Imo a selection when not made exclusively on merit would be arguably be even more suspect. Anyway, yes, elections are popularity contests.
From what I understand at the time Harvard was very interested in easing racial tensions. In fact, the first black tenured professor resigned over the situation there. So the election of the first black editor of law review would and did help ease some of those tensions.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/
ParticipantI don’t know whether intellect was weighed as a factor or not. I suspect intellect was to a certain degree a factor. There is no doubt Obama was popular and even then a good speaker. However, intellect itself clearly was not the overriding qualification. And I don’t think anyone would say Obama was the best student or intellect in the running.
Also Obama wasn’t selected, he was elected. Albeit elected by the other 61 editors. Imo a selection when not made exclusively on merit would be arguably be even more suspect. Anyway, yes, elections are popularity contests.
From what I understand at the time Harvard was very interested in easing racial tensions. In fact, the first black tenured professor resigned over the situation there. So the election of the first black editor of law review would and did help ease some of those tensions.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. [/quote]
That awfully sounds like
“I don’t care we don’t have health care reform as Iong as I have MY health insurance.”[/quote]
That is quite an erroneous inference about me from that comment. I actually would like some health care reforms.
Is there something wrong though with someone who doesn’t want health care reform because they are happy with their own health insurance? You seem to implying something negative about such a person with your comment.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. [/quote]
That awfully sounds like
“I don’t care we don’t have health care reform as Iong as I have MY health insurance.”[/quote]
That is quite an erroneous inference about me from that comment. I actually would like some health care reforms.
Is there something wrong though with someone who doesn’t want health care reform because they are happy with their own health insurance? You seem to implying something negative about such a person with your comment.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. [/quote]
That awfully sounds like
“I don’t care we don’t have health care reform as Iong as I have MY health insurance.”[/quote]
That is quite an erroneous inference about me from that comment. I actually would like some health care reforms.
Is there something wrong though with someone who doesn’t want health care reform because they are happy with their own health insurance? You seem to implying something negative about such a person with your comment.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. [/quote]
That awfully sounds like
“I don’t care we don’t have health care reform as Iong as I have MY health insurance.”[/quote]
That is quite an erroneous inference about me from that comment. I actually would like some health care reforms.
Is there something wrong though with someone who doesn’t want health care reform because they are happy with their own health insurance? You seem to implying something negative about such a person with your comment.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix]I’m pretty easy going and I don’t care what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me. [/quote]
That awfully sounds like
“I don’t care we don’t have health care reform as Iong as I have MY health insurance.”[/quote]
That is quite an erroneous inference about me from that comment. I actually would like some health care reforms.
Is there something wrong though with someone who doesn’t want health care reform because they are happy with their own health insurance? You seem to implying something negative about such a person with your comment.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
He hasn’t released any grade info so I don’t know whether he got in under some affirmative action or because he was best qualified. What I do know is that his position as Editor of the Harvard Law Review was not academic or qualification based but an elected position.
Second, there is a book called “outliers”, that I enjoyed, puts forth a view that intelligence isn’t the best factor to measure potential success. In fact, the view of the author is that one just needs to be good enough to be successful. Most jobs including the presidency do not demand superior IQs and in fact to a certain extent a superior IQ can be detrimental. Anyway I understand Carter was said to have a high IQ and he sucked big time.
Third, how do you even know the relative IQs of former GOP and Dem Potus’s when none have actually been released.
It really disturbs me that so many buy into this relative intelligence argument with no proof whatsoever as to what each guys IQ is or whether it really matters. In fact many seem to also buy into the innate superiority of those who attend Harvard and Yale also, except when it’s a GOP legacy.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
He hasn’t released any grade info so I don’t know whether he got in under some affirmative action or because he was best qualified. What I do know is that his position as Editor of the Harvard Law Review was not academic or qualification based but an elected position.
Second, there is a book called “outliers”, that I enjoyed, puts forth a view that intelligence isn’t the best factor to measure potential success. In fact, the view of the author is that one just needs to be good enough to be successful. Most jobs including the presidency do not demand superior IQs and in fact to a certain extent a superior IQ can be detrimental. Anyway I understand Carter was said to have a high IQ and he sucked big time.
Third, how do you even know the relative IQs of former GOP and Dem Potus’s when none have actually been released.
It really disturbs me that so many buy into this relative intelligence argument with no proof whatsoever as to what each guys IQ is or whether it really matters. In fact many seem to also buy into the innate superiority of those who attend Harvard and Yale also, except when it’s a GOP legacy.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
He hasn’t released any grade info so I don’t know whether he got in under some affirmative action or because he was best qualified. What I do know is that his position as Editor of the Harvard Law Review was not academic or qualification based but an elected position.
Second, there is a book called “outliers”, that I enjoyed, puts forth a view that intelligence isn’t the best factor to measure potential success. In fact, the view of the author is that one just needs to be good enough to be successful. Most jobs including the presidency do not demand superior IQs and in fact to a certain extent a superior IQ can be detrimental. Anyway I understand Carter was said to have a high IQ and he sucked big time.
Third, how do you even know the relative IQs of former GOP and Dem Potus’s when none have actually been released.
It really disturbs me that so many buy into this relative intelligence argument with no proof whatsoever as to what each guys IQ is or whether it really matters. In fact many seem to also buy into the innate superiority of those who attend Harvard and Yale also, except when it’s a GOP legacy.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
He hasn’t released any grade info so I don’t know whether he got in under some affirmative action or because he was best qualified. What I do know is that his position as Editor of the Harvard Law Review was not academic or qualification based but an elected position.
Second, there is a book called “outliers”, that I enjoyed, puts forth a view that intelligence isn’t the best factor to measure potential success. In fact, the view of the author is that one just needs to be good enough to be successful. Most jobs including the presidency do not demand superior IQs and in fact to a certain extent a superior IQ can be detrimental. Anyway I understand Carter was said to have a high IQ and he sucked big time.
Third, how do you even know the relative IQs of former GOP and Dem Potus’s when none have actually been released.
It really disturbs me that so many buy into this relative intelligence argument with no proof whatsoever as to what each guys IQ is or whether it really matters. In fact many seem to also buy into the innate superiority of those who attend Harvard and Yale also, except when it’s a GOP legacy.
Participant[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]
Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.
The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.
What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.
Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.
Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]
Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?
McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.
Reagan – Actor. Enough said.
POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.
Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.
I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]
First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
He hasn’t released any grade info so I don’t know whether he got in under some affirmative action or because he was best qualified. What I do know is that his position as Editor of the Harvard Law Review was not academic or qualification based but an elected position.
Second, there is a book called “outliers”, that I enjoyed, puts forth a view that intelligence isn’t the best factor to measure potential success. In fact, the view of the author is that one just needs to be good enough to be successful. Most jobs including the presidency do not demand superior IQs and in fact to a certain extent a superior IQ can be detrimental. Anyway I understand Carter was said to have a high IQ and he sucked big time.
Third, how do you even know the relative IQs of former GOP and Dem Potus’s when none have actually been released.
It really disturbs me that so many buy into this relative intelligence argument with no proof whatsoever as to what each guys IQ is or whether it really matters. In fact many seem to also buy into the innate superiority of those who attend Harvard and Yale also, except when it’s a GOP legacy.
-
AuthorPosts