Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   Doonesbury believes Presidental IQ study, apologizes for it later   ( divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

3001 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Sep 2001 at 12:15 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

117 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2001-09-07 12:30:04 AM  
Post de Uno
2001-09-07 12:31:20 AM  
Holy shiat, that first paragraph has more hate in it, than any chick tract collection combined! Guess it's not OK to be wrong... even when it's about something which MANY PEOPLE BELIEVED for some odd reason (or not so odd reason). While Bush's intelligence isn't as pathetically low as that hoax made it out to be, it is low enough that he makes up words :) What he needs is some Charisma. Hire a new person to craft his image.
2001-09-07 12:32:04 AM  
Are there any people in the crowd that think NewsMax is an unbias site after reading that, also? Thought so...
2001-09-07 12:41:01 AM  
His IQ may not be as low as that fake report stated it to be, but the man obviously does not have "above average" intelligence.

Sad that our leaders aren't required to have brains.

I wonder.... could this be any indication of our nation's falling average intelligence?
2001-09-07 12:44:18 AM  
They're not only creepy extremists they sell Ronald Reagan's Greatest Speeches. Scary. Now consider that's one of their top ten sells. Below it is Commies.
2001-09-07 12:47:29 AM  
[image from too old to be available] They probably think this photo is a fake too. PHOTOS NEVER LIE. ;)
2001-09-07 12:54:00 AM  
That photo is fake. I mean, where is the crack pipe? See? false.
2001-09-07 12:58:12 AM  
The fact that the study was a fake doesn't preclude Bush from still being a dumb ass.
2001-09-07 01:01:41 AM  
So George W's IQ really isn't 91 like I heard before?
2001-09-07 01:11:53 AM  
I'm glad Trudeau had enough class to own up to his mistake. I doubt Newsmax would do the same.
As for being "leftist propaganda," let us not forget that Trudeau portrayed Clinton as a waffle.
2001-09-07 01:12:06 AM  
I thought the IQ cartoon was funny (at least as much as the average Doonesbury cartoon). People who are losing sleep over this need to take the comic strips a little less seriously. Since when is it required that jokes must be based only on hard facts?
2001-09-07 01:15:18 AM  
Oh, grow up. Do we have to measure?
2001-09-07 01:16:21 AM  
P.S. I was referring to the hate mail posted at Just wanted to note that.
2001-09-07 01:20:39 AM  
Here is a link about the hoax.
2001-09-07 01:33:44 AM  
His IQ might be in dispute, but he sure doesn't know how to speak:

"Laura and I don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis";

Lots more of these great quotes in an Atlantic article about Bush's apparent dyslexia.
2001-09-07 01:38:39 AM  
I think this should bring the intelligence of the people who believed the study into question
2001-09-07 01:46:47 AM  
Eh. The Republicans are feeling a little beseiged, what with abuse seeming to come from every direction when it comes to ol' Dubya. What with the Democrats being pretty damn bitter about their near win, Bush has been taking somewhat more abuse than he deserves. Eh. Yeah, he's for drilling in Alaska, when I've been told (My pappy sat me down and told me the story about that oil shortage in the 70s and how a lot of oil derricks in Louisiana and Texas and hereabouts were shut down when there was still oil to be had. Sure, this may not be the most reliable source, but oh well.) that there's still oil outside of national wilderness preserves. Sure he's determined to get that missile shield system up and running despite the fact that doing so will alienate China and Russia (I still say you can't trust those damn commies, but perhaps developing the system in secret would have been the more prudent way to go about things.). But he's not Satan! He's doing things the Republican way. Less concern for the environment, more emphasis on the economy, and a strengthening of the military. Those are typical Republican values, and seeing as how about half of the voting public(ignorant as they are) voted for him, I'd say they've stated their support of these actions.
2001-09-07 01:52:57 AM  
EggYolkEnema - So George W's IQ really isn't 91 like I heard before?

Nah. It's closer to about 45 or 50.
2001-09-07 01:54:18 AM  
Near win? What are you talking about? Gore did win. He got more votes.

Re-elect Gore in 2004.
2001-09-07 01:56:17 AM  
FifthColumn: Kudos on discovering that NewsMax is a biased news source, and for imforming the rest of us. How did you do it?
2001-09-07 02:06:50 AM  
Pheh. As I recall, Gore did indeed get the popular vote. But then that's pretty much irrelevant now isn't it? Seeing as how the president is selected by the electoral college with the popular vote in each state being considered a mere suggestion that does not actually bind the members of the electoral college to go with what the voting public want.
Fun Fact: Members of the electoral college have gone against the popular vote twice, but on neither occasion did their actions have an affect on the end result.
I for one find this system to be quite full of bullshiat, and yearn for the day when bloody revolution shall sweep across the land, cleansing it of this corruption.
2001-09-07 02:12:23 AM  
Correction, SuicideBoy: The elector ARE bound by the popular vote in MOST states. There are only a few (I think six) states, referred to as "swing states", where they are not. However, even if the electors were bound by the popular vote in EVERY state, it would still be mathematically possible for a candidate to win the national popular vote and lose the election.
2001-09-07 02:16:02 AM  
Hmm. I will have to go look that up. I seem to quite definately recall reading in my Government textbook that the electors were not bound to the popular vote at all.
2001-09-07 02:16:15 AM  
The electoral college is just fine. A purely 'popular vote' would swing power away from rural areas, under-populated areas, and the hegemony of the urbanites would become permanent. The system protects the rights of the minority and allows for equal representation as well as proportional representation.

This is a Republic of United States, not a mob free-for-all.

Thus ends today's civics lesson.
2001-09-07 02:17:12 AM  
And fark me if I didn't misspell definitely.
2001-09-07 02:18:01 AM  
Phah! You act as if a mob free-for-all is a bad thing!
2001-09-07 02:24:42 AM  
Pheh. I'd say that my inclination is to say that a government concentrate on doing what's best for the majority, but then that's Communism, and it is my impression that Communism can't work, despite what all the pinkos(Heh. I love that word) say.
2001-09-07 02:27:04 AM  
Hey...waitaminute...From what I remember of the electoral college, each state's number of electoral votes is dependent on population, so doesn't the electoral college do all the same thing state by state?
2001-09-07 02:29:40 AM  
And another thing, doesn't that make a person's vote in California worth more than a person's vote in Alaska? Are we instituting a classist system in which voters' importance is based upon the state in which they live?
2001-09-07 02:30:25 AM  
Huh. I should have made that all just one message, shouldn't I?
2001-09-07 02:39:18 AM  
a person in CA _is_ more valuable than AK, AL, UT, MT, NV, or any other 'podunk state', but only in terms of the budgetary constraints for a national campaign.

1. Because each state is winner take all, then you can still campaign throughout upstate new york and win all the reps, even if you suck in NYC (assuming there are more people in upstate ny). Thus, the rural can balance against the metro areas.

2. If you string enough middle and small states together, you can get enough votes even if you don't carry the metro states (NY, IL, CA, MA, FL).

This is exactly what the bush campaign did. The trick was to get florida: Gore was counting on that state because he didn't have ANY of the rural states. That's also why there was all the fighting on those three counties: bush got all the rural counties in west fla...

and by the way, a mob free-for-all might not be so bad as long as i don't have to do what they tell me-- i'm a libertarian.
2001-09-07 02:51:17 AM  
I would not agree that a person's vote in California is worth more than a person's vote in Montana (or any other lowly populates state). Obviously, CA has a lot more electoral votes, but with about 40 million people ther, one person's vote in CA is a much lower percentage of the total state vote.

Montana has 4 electors and about 800,000 people. That theoretically makes one vote worth 0.000005 electoral votes. California has (I think) 50 electoral votes and about 40 million people, so one vote is worth 0.00000125 electoral votes.

By that rationale, a single Montana vote is worth four times as much as a single California vote.

(Note: this is not perfect logic. I rounded off the population numbers, and the formula assumes that every citizen votes, which is obviously not the case - I am just illustrating a point)
2001-09-07 02:55:25 AM  
My impression of a mob free-for-all system of government is that no one would really be telling anyone what to do. I would think that things would turn into more of a rape, pillage, and murder situation. Anywho, it still seems somehow wrong to me that it takes 5 or 6 people in rural states to equal one person in California. To make a completely irrelivent comparison designed to stir up emotion in favor of my cause, weren't African slaves counted as fractions of people (wasn't it 3 slaves = 1 white man or somesuch?) for the purpose of censuses(censi?) and to determine how many electoral votes and senators and such a state got? Are you saying that you are in favor of a system that slaveowners used?!? Hehe.
2001-09-07 03:02:03 AM  
Eh. Considering that from what I recall California typically votes Democrat (though Reagan won California on his 2nd term, didn't he?) because of the higher concentration of more liberal type folks there, and the more rural states typically tend to be more conservative and vote more often for Republicans, a Democratic presidential candidate isn't gonna have to work as hard in California as a Republican is. As I recall, Bush made only a token effort in California, because it was pretty much a given that Gore was gonna take that state, while Gore didn't do all that much campaigning in Texas, because he knew Bush was gonna take that state. The fact that the residents of these states tend to have an existing bias that gives on candidate an advantage over the other and makes certain states somewhat unattainable.
Yeesh. That looks kinda garbled. Ah well.
2001-09-07 03:03:12 AM  
Goddamnit! I misspelled one! Three little letters and I farked it up. That's it. Bedtime for me.
2001-09-07 03:12:11 AM  
Which states where overrepresented and which were underrepresented in the2000 election?


Overrepresented relativeto both Population and TurnoutOverrepresented vs. Population,Underrepresented vs. TurnoutAccurate vs. Population,Overrepresented vs. TurnoutUnderrepresented vs. Population,Accurate vs. TurnoutUnderrepresented relativeto both Population and turnoutChart showingwhich states had an electoral vote which overrepresented them relativeto their actual 1990 populations and actual 2000 turnouts.
States whose names are white hadelectors that went to Gore, names which are black went to Bush.

StatePopPercentageTurnout (2000)PercentageElectorsPercentageDiff: Pop & ECDiff: TO & ECAlabama40403891.62%16662721.58%91.67%0.05%0.09%Alaska550 0430.22%2855600.27%30.56%0.34%0.29%Arizona36653391.47%1532 0161.45%81.49%0.01%0.03%Arkansas23506240.94%9217810.87%6 1.12%0.17%0.24%California2981142711.98%1096585610.40%5410.04% -1.95%-0.37%Colorado32944731.32%17413681.65%81.49%0.16%-0.1 7%Connecticut32871161.32%14595251.38%81.49%0.17%0.10%Delawar e6661680.27%3275290.31%30.56%0.29%0.25%Districtof Columbia6069000.24%2018940.19%30.56%0.31%0.37%Florida1293807 15.20%59631105.66%254.65%-0.55%-1.01%Georgia64781492.60%25 966452.46%132.42%-0.19%-0.05%Hawaii11082290.45%3679510.35% 40.74%0.30%0.39%Idaho10067340.40%5016170.48%40.74%0.34%0 .27%Illinois114306024.59%47421234.50%224.09%-0.51%-0.41%Indi ana55441562.23%21993052.09%122.23%0.00%0.14%Iowa27768311.1 2%13155631.25%71.30%0.18%0.05%Kansas24775881.00%10722161.0 2%61.12%0.12%0.10%Kentucky36868921.48%15441871.47%81.49% 0.01%0.02%Louisiana42218261.70%17656561.68%91.67%-0.02%0.00% Main12279280.49%6518170.62%40.74%0.25%0.13%Maryland4780753 1.92%20237351.92%101.86%-0.06%-0.06%Massachusetts60164252.42 %27029842.56%122.23%-0.19%-0.33%Michigan92952873.74%4232501 4.02%183.35%-0.39%-0.67%Minnesota43756651.76%24386852.31%10 1.86%0.10%-0.46%Mississippi25754751.04%9941840.94%71.30%0. 27%0.36%Missouri51669012.08%23598922.24%112.04%-0.03%-0.19% Montana7990650.32%4109970.39%30.56%0.24%0.17%Nebraska157841 70.63%6970190.66%50.93%0.29%0.27%Nevada12016750.48%608970 0.58%40.74%0.26%0.17%NewHampsire11092520.45%5677950.54%40 .74%0.30%0.20%NewJersey77477503.11%31872263.02%152.79%-0.33% -0.24%NewMexico15150690.61%5986050.57%50.93%0.32%0.36%NewY ork179907787.23%68219996.47%336.13%-1.10%-0.34%NorthCarolina 66324482.67%29149902.77%142.60%-0.06%-0.16%NorthDakota638800 0.26%2882560.27%30.56%0.30%0.28%Ohio108471154.36%47019984. 46%213.90%-0.46%-0.56%Oklahoma31455761.26%12342291.17%81.4 9%0.22%0.32%Oregon28423371.14%15339681.46%71.30%0.16%-0.15 %Pennsylvania118828424.78%49131194.66%234.28%-0.50%-0.39%Rho deIsland10034640.40%4087830.39%40.74%0.34%0.36%SouthCarolina 34863101.40%13842531.31%81.49%0.09%0.17%SouthDakota6960040.2 8%3162690.30%30.56%0.28%0.26%Tennessee48772031.96%20761811 .97%112.04%0.08%0.07%Texas169863356.83%64076376.08%325.95% -0.88%-0.13%Utah17228500.69%7707540.73%50.93%0.24%0.20%V ermont5627580.23%2943080.28%30.56%0.33%0.28%Virginia6189197 2.49%27394472.60%132.42%-0.07%-0.18%Washington48666691.96%2 4874332.36%112.04%0.09%-0.32%WestVirginia17934770.72%6481240 .61%50.93%0.21%0.31%Wisconson48919541.97%25986072.47%112.0 4%0.08%-0.42%Wyoming4535890.18%2137260.20%30.56%0.38%0.35%

States that voted Democrat which were underrepresented(relative to Turnout):12Percent (out of 19 states plus (1) D.C. that voted Democrat)60.00%  States that voted Republican that were underrepresented(relative to Turnout): 8Percent (out of 31 states that voted Republican)25.81%
2001-09-07 03:13:57 AM  
Dang it filters out table and font tags.... Have fun reading that...
2001-09-07 03:32:40 AM  
And of course NewsMax would never pass on any unsubstantiated rumors...
2001-09-07 03:50:53 AM  
2001-09-07 04:01:18 AM  
Haha... just went to that one link that Stebain posted. Clinton has an IQ of 182? Sure.... I don't really think IQ tests really determine how smart you are, but come on, no way in hell he scored that high.
2001-09-07 04:35:37 AM  
I liked the bit where newmax talked about bias. lol
2001-09-07 06:16:21 AM  
OK, I'm a bit slow, but what you are all saying is that the President of the USA isn't elected by the citizens? That a separate board of people ultimately decides? And THIS is supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world? laf!

Why do you even bother having elections then? Just to calm the masses?

(BTW, I'm Aussie, and may be totally wrong, so please go ahead and correct me as you see fit)
2001-09-07 07:02:27 AM  
This is a GOP rag. Not worth posting about.
2001-09-07 07:03:53 AM  
PS... Bush is STILL a farking moron... Technologigraphically speaking in a Hispinical kinda way.
2001-09-07 07:15:59 AM  
showing once again that "Doonesbury" is nothing more than leftist propaganda.
Did I miss something here?

Oh, and, SuicideBoy, if you ever write that much in one thread again I will kill you.
2001-09-07 07:23:02 AM  
Amen! We should all demand more seriousness in our comics!
2001-09-07 07:39:49 AM  
Exclusive photo of Shrub teaching Mexican president how to do a quick 'bump' of cocaine using only your index finger.

[image from too old to be available]
2001-09-07 07:52:27 AM  
Tsubaki: Our "Founding Fathers" didn't trust the masses to elect a president, so they took the election out of their direct hands. Most states used the election as a mere suggestion, and had the electors appointed by their state legislatures until the late 19th century, and I believe that that was the case in a few of them (North Carolina was one, if I remember correctly) into the early 20th century.
2001-09-07 08:21:50 AM  
Newsmax should at least make a nice-looking site for their goose-stepping drivel. Bush is a huge dumbass which is why it's not hard for anyone to fall for some rumor predicated upon his idiocy. Just like Clinton and his sexcapades. Bush sucks!
2001-09-07 08:24:10 AM  
The USA is NOT a democracy and was never intended to be. The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights feared a democracy, scared that a majority would trample the rights of the minority in countless ways. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence will you find the word democracy.

Never forget the definition of a democracy: Three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Displayed 50 of 117 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.