Being able to score well on objective tests is an advantage, but the older I get the more I believe it is a woefully inadequate measure of a person. One of my parents and at least one of my children had IQs north of 150, and generally strong test taking abilities got my immediate family members into Harvard, Stanford, U of Chic, Columbia, MIT, and similar so-called blue ribbon schools. But IQ and objective test results were not stressed and rarely discussed, because I think we just understood what an incomplete measure those tests are. Resilience, empathy, humor, curiosity, the ability to care were given higher value. After undergrad, I spent the first 13 years of my adult life swinging a hammer, and I'm grateful for that experience--worked along side some extremely healthy minds during those years.
Intellectual horsepower is a good thing. I wish our President had even a little of it, because many things appear to beyond his grasp. But any number of tools can perform fairly similar functions (circular saw, hand drill, etc), each can be top-of-the-line, and yet have their highest best value in completely different circumstances. We are that way. Add the qualities we desire in a human being, and objective measures become even less compelling.
The above comments are cliche, but they deserved to be made anyway.
I imagine based on the recent pardons and DOJ stories we can remove attempted murder and attempted rape out of the criminal code. After all. You didn't finish the job (Blagojevich didn't finish selling the Senate seat).
Everyone good with that? I don't see a problem.
**NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.
Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.
I'd chime in with my ACT scores, but growing up in a place with electricity and running water we took the SATs instead. :P
Cornell '04, Stanford '06
KDR
RoverFrenchy, Classic! Great post. iwh30I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man gregg729I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence." Ritt18you are the perfect representation of your alma mater. Miss ThundercatThat's it, you win. TBA#2I want to kill you and dance in your blood. DisplacedCornellianHahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.
WASHINGTON — Former California Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher confirmed in a new interview that during a three-hour meeting at the Ecuadorian Embassy in August 2017, he told Julian Assange he would get President Trump to give him a pardon if he turned over information proving the Russians had not been the source of internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks.
In a phone interview with Yahoo News, Rohrabacher said his goal during the meeting was to find proof for a widely debunked conspiracy theory: that WikiLeaks’ real source for the DNC emails was not Russian intelligence agents, as U.S. officials have since concluded, but former DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was murdered on the streets of Washington in July 2016 in what police believe was a botched robbery.
A lawyer for Assange in London on Wednesday cited the pardon offer from Rohrabacher during a court hearing on the U.S. government’s request to extradite the WikiLeaks founder.
Cornell '04, Stanford '06
KDR
RoverFrenchy, Classic! Great post. iwh30I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man gregg729I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence." Ritt18you are the perfect representation of your alma mater. Miss ThundercatThat's it, you win. TBA#2I want to kill you and dance in your blood. DisplacedCornellianHahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.
For the orcs still denying Russian involvement is this not definitive proof they were involved? Surely Assange would not have passed this offer up if he could prove otherwise.
I imagine based on the recent pardons and DOJ stories we can remove attempted murder and attempted rape out of the criminal code. After all. You didn't finish the job (Blagojevich didn't finish selling the Senate seat).
Everyone good with that? I don't see a problem.
I don't think there would be much opposition from the GOP about dropping attempted rape (or even actual rape) from the criminal code.
It's not like they face punishment for those crimes anyway.
So Dana is now admitting he talked to assange about a pardon?
I’m sure someone here will say he’s also not believable
And that Trump barely knew him, and certainly didn't have him on his short list for Secretary of State or anything like that.
Cornell '04, Stanford '06
KDR
RoverFrenchy, Classic! Great post. iwh30I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man gregg729I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence." Ritt18you are the perfect representation of your alma mater. Miss ThundercatThat's it, you win. TBA#2I want to kill you and dance in your blood. DisplacedCornellianHahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.
For the orcs still denying Russian involvement is this not definitive proof they were involved? Surely Assange would not have passed this offer up if he could prove otherwise.
More relevant, if they were not involved, why do you need to go to such lengths to manufacture evidence that they weren't.
Arrange could have had many reasons to turn it down. He didn't think they would follow through, he hint have such evidence to provide, he didn't trust Trump, he wasn't sure Dana had the pull to get a pardon, etc.
What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?
Sicatoka said he doesnt believe it...so obviously both Rohrbacher and Assange are lying.
"It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
-aparch
"Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
-INCH
Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
-ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007
More relevant, if they were not involved, why do you need to go to such lengths to manufacture evidence that they weren't.
Arrange could have had many reasons to turn it down. He didn't think they would follow through, he hint have such evidence to provide, he didn't trust Trump, he wasn't sure Dana had the pull to get a pardon, etc.
Maybe but those reasons would seem contradictory to Assange's "burn them all" reasoning behind everything else he's ever leaked.
Comment