Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (68888)	9/10/2004 1:53:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 793587

We should rethink the minimum standards for someone to become PROTUS. I'll agree with you there. And the first standard we should impose is this: anybody who is willing to do what it is necessary to do in this day and age to be elected President is by definition unqualified to be President. For a less intelligent crowd, I would be inclined to amplify or justify this position. For a crowd as smart as the one here, they can understand and agree with this thought without needing further amplification.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (68888)	9/10/2004 2:10:05 PM
From: Bridge Player	Respond to of 793587

Ummmm....I believe the term is POTUS.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (68888)	9/10/2004 4:19:46 PM
From: haqihana	Respond to of 793587

Mary, Don't put such emphasis on the size of a person's IQ. It is what the initials stand for "intelligence quotient". It was once described to me as a fertile plot of ground. If on plows, seeds, waters, weeds, and fertilizes it, a great crop can be grown for the benefit of the landowner. But if the possessor of a large IQ, juts lets it go it's own natural way, and nothing is done to improve upon the gift, all it will grow is a tangled patch of weeds. Also, it is rather evident, that many of our Presidents either, did not have a large IQ, or failed to improve upon it, but still came out smelling like roses.