NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your opinion on Bush? Im not saying that I hate bush, I just want to know what people all over the world think....Thank you

Prepares for the usual, slanderous comments:

Bush is good on somethings weak on others.

i don't think Bush has the intellectual capacity to fulfil the highly responsible role of President. sure, he's a nice guy (apparently) but i dont want a nice guy running my country - i'd rather have a responsible and intelligent leader.

If Bush is an idiot, then Gore was a complete and utter moron.

We can just go on the basis of their academic performance.

Bush got better grades in college.
He got his MBA at Harvard.
Gore got worse grades.
He flunked out of divinity school.
He flunked out of law school.

Gore's father had far more political clout at the time and was worth several times what Bush's father was (assets and money).

I used to work for one of Gore's close friends in high school (when Gore went to St. Albans). He was convinced, long before Gore ran for office, that Gore was completely stupid and disconnected from real life.

And his friend was a Democrat. Who voted for Bush because he knew Gore was an idiot.

i don't think Bush has the intellectual capacity to fulfil the highly responsible role of President. sure, he's a nice guy (apparently) but i dont want a nice guy running my country - i'd rather have a responsible and intelligent leader.
I don't think people like him because he's a nice guy. Actually, it seems to be quite the opposite. He carries this "American Badass" thing about him that makes people want to vote for him. You hear it a lot when people praise him for going to war without great amounts of support.

Regardless, the threads are really getting old. Yes, some of us dislike the president. Others love the guy. What's more important would be the discussion of his policies rather than of his person I think.

If Bush is an idiot, then Gore was a complete and utter moron.

We can just go on the basis of their academic performance.

Bush got better grades in college.
He got his MBA at Harvard.
Gore got worse grades.
He flunked out of divinity school.
He flunked out of law school.

Gore's father had far more political clout at the time and was worth several times what Bush's father was (assets and money).

I used to work for one of Gore's close friends in high school (when Gore went to St. Albans). He was convinced, long before Gore ran for office, that Gore was completely stupid and disconnected from real life.

And his friend was a Democrat. Who voted for Bush because he knew Gore was an idiot.
Nobody ever said anything about Gore. This makes your comment irrelevant. The only thing important here is "He got his MBA at Harvard"

It's nice when people stick to a subject, no matter how played out that subject is.

Seriously, diss his policies all you want (I do often), but quit calling him an idiot. Ad hominem attacks just make YOU look bad.

What is your opinion on Bush?

Bush is nice ... some people like it trimmed or completely shaven, but au naturale is the way to be!

If Bush is an idiot, then Gore was a complete and utter moron.

We can just go on the basis of their academic performance.

Bush got better grades in college.
He got his MBA at Harvard.
Gore got worse grades.
He flunked out of divinity school.
He flunked out of law school.

Gore's father had far more political clout at the time and was worth several times what Bush's father was (assets and money).

I used to work for one of Gore's close friends in high school (when Gore went to St. Albans). He was convinced, long before Gore ran for office, that Gore was completely stupid and disconnected from real life.

And his friend was a Democrat. Who voted for Bush because he knew Gore was an idiot.
Bush got a gained a degree, barely.. in business

George W. Bush isn't the brightest guy even to be in office, but he has he goals and he will fight for them, which is why I didn't support Kerry. Kerry's goals changed all the time. Not good.

I don't think he's an idiot. I just think he's dangerous, and he frightens me.

He got his MBA at Harvard.


And then went on to fail several business ventures .... including oil businesses ... in Texas .... in the 1970s .......

nutty.

Bush got a gained a degree, barely.. in business

Still better than Gore.

If people are going to say Bush is stupid, and they believe it, then it is a proven FACT that at least in terms of academic performance, Gore is MORE.

Stupid, that is.

If he isn't, he's good at hiding it.

If Bush is an idiot, then Gore was a complete and utter moron.

We can just go on the basis of their academic performance.

Bush got better grades in college.
He got his MBA at Harvard.
Gore got worse grades.
He flunked out of divinity school.
He flunked out of law school.

Gore's father had far more political clout at the time and was worth several times what Bush's father was (assets and money).

I used to work for one of Gore's close friends in high school (when Gore went to St. Albans). He was convinced, long before Gore ran for office, that Gore was completely stupid and disconnected from real life.

And his friend was a Democrat. Who voted for Bush because he knew Gore was an idiot.

Person A is only a genius because I compare him with Person B.

If people are going to say Bush is stupid, and they believe it, then it is a proven FACT that at least in terms of academic performance, Gore is MORE.


Why do you keep going on about Gore? Other than you, has anyone in this thread or any of the threads posted in the last 2 weeks said anything about Gore ... at all?

What is your obsession?

To me, Bush is an idiot. He is sending America's credibility and reputation down the drain everyday. He isn't fit to be president of such a powerful country. He was better suited to operate in Texas - at least then he couldn't fuck with the world.

Still better than Gore.

If people are going to say Bush is stupid, and they believe it, then it is a proven FACT that at least in terms of academic performance, Gore is MORE.

Stupid, that is.
lets see, everything i can think of bush getting was given to him
he got a degree in BUSINESS, BARELY (passed with a c wasnt it?)
all his major business ventures involved him saying stuff along the lines of sure, ill do it, then bailnig out before shit went under

oh yes, i would LOVE him in charge of the country. a person with an education solely in business which he barely achieved and a knowledge base on how to bail out of shit before it goes bad enoguh to get him blamed for it

wow gore flunked law school, im pretty sure you dont have to be an idiot to be a lawyer as opposed to business..

The man's IQ is documented as being in the top 95%. That means that there aren't a whole lot of people who are smarter. Heck, even the "supposed" intellectual John Kerry is documented as being in the top 92%, 3 full points lower. Bush may not be the greatest communicator, but he is by no means an idiot, and I laugh heartily every time I see him referrred to as such.

lets see, everything i can think of bush getting was given to him
he got a degree in BUSINESS, BARELY (passed with a c wasnt it?)
all his major business ventures involved him saying stuff along the lines of sure, ill do it, then bailnig out before shit went under

oh yes, i would LOVE him in charge of the country. a person with an education solely in business which he barely achieved and a knowledge base on how to bail out of shit before it goes bad enoguh to get him blamed for it

wow gore flunked law school, im pretty sure you dont have to be an idiot to be a lawyer as opposed to business..

Wow, Gore also flunked divinity school. That's amazing, isn't it?

He got worse grades in college than Bush. That's amazing, isn't it?

Hmm. Gore was sent to Vietnam - but his father was a powerful Senator - so he NEVER saw combat. He had a job as a "combat" photographer - but he never took a single picture because his father wanted the Army to guarantee his safety.

The man who claimed to have cleared farmland with a mule and a plow. Who actually spent those years living at the Cosmos Club in DC and attending an exclusive private school - no blisters on those hands, that's for sure.

Hmm. Tommy Lee Jones, his roommate in college, described Gore as "the dullest man I've ever met".

The man's IQ is documented as being in the top 95%. That means that there aren't a whole lot of people who are smarter. Heck, even the "supposed" intellectual John Kerry is documented as being in the top 92%, 3 full points lower. Bush may not be the greatest communicator, but he is by no means an idiot, and I laugh heartily every time I see him referrred to as such.

Not truely doubting but I can see proof of this please?

What is your opinion on Bush? Im not saying that I hate bush, I just want to know what people all over the world think....Thank you

I'm a fairly young Canadian, but despite that I really like the guy.

There's no other world leader who is as dedicated and consistent about promoting the beauty of concepts like freedom and democracy, even if the execution is sometimes awry - my PM, for instance, pays the usual lip service to it, but he won't be anything to piss off dictators as evidenced by his BJ-ing of the Chinese politburo on his last foreign jaunt.

Tony Blair has it. Reagan had it. Thatcher has it. Sharansky and Sakharov have it. Scoop Jackson, the last great Democrat, certainly had it. And Dubya has it in spades.

Imagine if democracy was being defended by pusillanious opportunists like Chirac or Kerry. Oy vey.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

Not a right wing newspaper, either.

Hmm. Tommy Lee Jones, his roommate in college, described Gore as "the dullest man I've ever met".

Well, until he went nuts. Now he's just scary.

http://flickr.com/photos/119548_49502971731@N01_m.jpg

I'm a fairly young Canadian, but despite that I really like the guy.

There's no other world leader who is as dedicated and consistent about promoting the beauty of concepts like freedom and democracy, even if the execution is sometimes awry - my PM, for instance, pays the usual lip service to it, but he won't be anything to piss off dictators as evidenced by his BJ-ing of the Chinese politburo on his last foreign jaunt.

Tony Blair has it. Reagan had it. Thatcher has it. Sharansky and Sakharov have it. Scoop Jackson, the last great Democrat, certainly had it. And Dubya has it in spades.

Imagine if democracy was being defended by pusillanious opportunists like Chirac or Kerry. Oy vey.

Nice post Wheatstraw. I liked it alot! Don't know much about Canadian politics but the people you named did have the dedication to promote Freedom and democracy. Yea the execution of it goes awry sometimes but at least it is being executed.

Keep up the good work.

Well, until he went nuts. Now he's just scary.

http://flickr.com/photos/119548_49502971731@N01_m.jpg

I love the picture! LOL!!!

The president is not an idiot as you people seem to think. He did get a masters. And any degree at Harvard is a pretty good one.

Also, he does not seem to have to swear when describing his feelings about people. Honestly guys this is a forum, not a bawdyhouse.

Third, perhaps we as americans do not want to elect geniuses. Clinton was not elected for his stunning intelect. Neither was Reagan. Carter and ford were not Great either. THey are not stupid but it wasnt the degrees that got them elected. Obviously people think Bush is capable to be reelected because he was.

If you want to call Bush an idiot, fine. But then the best that the democratic party could do was lose to him, over , and ovar, and over...

That's what I've always wanted to know.

They keep saying he's dumb, stupid, etc.

So if they keep losing to him, how stupid are ALL of them?

Watched the State of the Union. It was a show, after all, and he seemed to be a master showman.

A point that was completely lost on Pelosi and Harry - they looked like constipated old storks wailing about the President.

Wow, Gore also flunked divinity school. That's amazing, isn't it?

He got worse grades in college than Bush. That's amazing, isn't it?

Hmm. Gore was sent to Vietnam - but his father was a powerful Senator - so he NEVER saw combat. He had a job as a "combat" photographer - but he never took a single picture because his father wanted the Army to guarantee his safety.

The man who claimed to have cleared farmland with a mule and a plow. Who actually spent those years living at the Cosmos Club in DC and attending an exclusive private school - no blisters on those hands, that's for sure.

Hmm. Tommy Lee Jones, his roommate in college, described Gore as "the dullest man I've ever met".
Again...

It is highly appreciated and polite to stick to the conversation when entering it. Nobody said anything about Gore, so if you would kindly stop then I'll stop cursing at you from this side of the computer.

The question was asked about the current president and was not relative to his opponent from 4 years ago.

Nobody cares about Gore anymore. Knock it off, please.

I'm a fairly young Canadian, but despite that I really like the guy.

There's no other world leader who is as dedicated and consistent about promoting the beauty of concepts like freedom and democracy, even if the execution is sometimes awry - my PM, for instance, pays the usual lip service to it, but he won't be anything to piss off dictators as evidenced by his BJ-ing of the Chinese politburo on his last foreign jaunt.

Tony Blair has it. Reagan had it. Thatcher has it. Sharansky and Sakharov have it. Scoop Jackson, the last great Democrat, certainly had it. And Dubya has it in spades.

Imagine if democracy was being defended by pusillanious opportunists like Chirac or Kerry. Oy vey.


Young and naive indeed.

Last time I checked, young Canuck, the spreading of democracy and freedom didn't mean mercilessly killing thousands of innocent civilians and stripping people of their basic rights and freedoms. It didn't mean telling despot nations that they MUST embrace democracy while there is a full out assault on democracy in one's own backyard.

Yes, Martin is a weak-kneed leader, but at least we can count on him not to lead us into any devastating wars that will upset the economy, wreck our international reputation (yes, I'm content with being part of the non-descript nation). He is defending the rights of all Canadians.

He has decrimilized marijuana and will legalise gay marriage. He hasn't led us into a war that has run up a massive deficit. We have turned over surplus after surplus.

Our military may not be as great as some others and we may not be a very influential country, but we have a true democracy. Our parliament isn't dominated by just one party; it's divided amongst several.

Yes he could have told China that they are a bunch of self-serving assholes who couldn't pull human rights out of their asses, but, you know what, while we have a stellar human rights record, we don't have to always say something.

ow come on, do you guys really think that bush is a good leader?? The only thing he wants is make war. I can imagine that, but if that's what you wanna do, buy a computergame, and don't kill innocent people in iraq. Ow yeah!! he saved us from a huge thread called Saddam, but what for?? for all those weapons of mass destruction which he didnt have? Is this war worth all the innocent iraqi and american people's death? just to satisfie that dumb ****er in the white house?
I don't understand any of you who supports bush ?!?
I'd say open your eyes and look at what he's is doing, think about it! (really think, not just not copy what other people say) and then i'd like to hear your reaction.
bye
frank

btw: This is just about Iraq, if I had to write down everything, also what he is doing wrong in the USA (like less tax for the rich people and shit like that), I would be busy for hours, and he isn't worth so much of my time

Not truely doubting but I can see proof of this please?

I was suprised as heck when I read this in a NY Times article just before the election. Surprised because the NY Times reported something that gave Bush an edge, not because of the numbers. I could search it out and post a link, but I don't have the time to indulge you.

Apparently, it is also public record if you track down both of their military service records, as that is where the article stated the results are from. After all, they do not let idiots fly multi-million dollar fighter jets, no matter who their daddy is.

you are so naive

Young and naive indeed.

Nice way to start!

Last time I checked, young Canuck, the spreading of democracy and freedom didn't mean mercilessly killing thousands of innocent civilians and stripping people of their basic rights and freedoms. It didn't mean telling despot nations that they MUST embrace democracy while there is a full out assault on democracy in one's own backyard.

Last time I checked, we don't go around killing civilians intentionally.

Yes, Martin is a weak-kneed leader, but at least we can count on him not to lead us into any devastating wars that will upset the economy, wreck our international reputation (yes, I'm content with being part of the non-descript nation). He is defending the rights of all Canadians.

Our economy is growing so your wrong on that point too!

He has decrimilized marijuana and will legalise gay marriage. He hasn't led us into a war that has run up a massive deficit. We have turned over surplus after surplus.

Are you sure about that? Parliment may have something to say about it. As for your surplus, why isn't it being spent to modernize that great military of yours? I think the boy scouts of America could take over Canada.

Our military may not be as great as some others and we may not be a very influential country, but we have a true democracy. Our parliament isn't dominated by just one party; it's divided amongst several.

Your military is sunked and run down.

Yes he could have told China that they are a bunch of self-serving assholes who couldn't pull human rights out of their asses, but, you know what, while we have a stellar human rights record, we don't have to always say something.

Maybe you guys should for a change so that people don't take advantage of Canada!

I was suprised as heck when I read this in a NY Times article just before the election. Surprised because the NY Times reported something that gave Bush an edge, not because of the numbers. I could search it out and post a link, but I don't have the time to indulge you.

Apparently, it is also public record if you track down both of their military service records, as that is where the article stated the results are from. After all, they do not let idiots fly multi-million dollar fighter jets, no matter who their daddy is.

Good point! I would check the records but I don't have time for that either regretabely

you are so naive

Name calling gets you nowhere!

Prepares for the usual, slanderous comments:

Bush is good on somethings weak on others.
YEah taking others advice
Nah hes great

ok you are that kind of people who believe everything that's in the papers?
let me explain it a bit so you can understand:
fuck bush, he sucks

Nice way to start!



Last time I checked, we don't go around killing civilians intentionally.



Our economy is growing so your wrong on that point too!



Are you sure about that? Parliment may have something to say about it. As for your surplus, why isn't it being spent to modernize that great military of yours? I think the boy scouts of America could take over Canada.



Your military is sunked and run down.



Maybe you guys should for a change so that people don't take advantage of Canada!

1)Yes, it was a good start.

2)Whereas we didn't kill civilians intentionally, we wouldn't be killing them if we weren't over there anyway. They're still innocents and they're still dying.

3)The point made wasn't that our economy was growing but was simply stating the fact that we are in a defecit. Argue the points on the table.

4)Canada doesn't have ot worry about creating a super whoopass military because they don't go around forcing their beliefs on unsuspecting nations and pissing people off. This ties in with your next point as well.

ok you are that kind of people who believe everything that's in the papers?
let me explain it a bit so you can understand:
fuck bush, he sucks

Actually, I'm one of those that doesn't believe what the mass media is saying!

Just because I have a different opinion than you, gives you no right to attack me.

ok you are that kind of people who believe everything that's in the papers?
let me explain it a bit so you can understand:
fuck bush, he sucks
If you're going to argue with the grown ups, act like one.

I don't think he's an idiot. Misguided and misinformed with the occasional verbal indiscretion that makes him come across as a disgrace to his nation and the English language, but not an idiot. You don't rise to become the US president by being an idiot. That takes brains, solid financial backing, good political and business contacts, and other less savoury allies. None of which can be gained by inherent idiocy.

I think the better term would be "wanker".

Ok.....there is a different between being intelligent, and being book/policy smart....I got a 35 on my ACT and a 1575 on my SAT, but my grades have always been subpar...usually poeple with lower intelligence are lazy becasue they know they can get by without work (not that i am defending gore or anything)....i think Bush is policy smart, but when it comes down to the wire, he falls back on his cabinet too much (which is full of idiots...and yes...i am conservative as anyone who has read my posts should see)...

1)Yes, it was a good start.

Typical Liberal. Just because someone disagrees you call'em naive.

2)Whereas we didn't kill civilians intentionally, we wouldn't be killing them if we weren't over there anyway. They're still innocents and they're still dying.

How many people have the terrorists killed? You attack the US for accidental killings but yet don't attack the terrorists that do it intentionally.

3)The point made wasn't that our economy was growing but was simply stating the fact that we are in a defecit. Argue the points on the table.

Yea the US is in a deficit but sometimes a deficit is a good thing.

4)Canada doesn't have ot worry about creating a super whoopass military because they don't go around forcing their beliefs on unsuspecting nations and pissing people off. This ties in with your next point as well.

No but Canada doesn't have the capacity to defend themselves. They rely to much on the US and Britain to defend them. They should stand on their own two feet and learn how to defend themselves.

Bush couldn't get into the University of Texas for his graduate school because his grades as an under grad were too low.
If IQ makes you a better leader, then I should have run. I rank three points higher percentage wise than Bush, six more than Gore. Never mind I'm nuts.
If being smarter made Bush better than Gore, Clinton was even better. He was a Rhodes scholar.
Bush got in Harvard by way of affirmatve action.
Just some things that ran through my mind while reading previous posts on this thread.

1)Yes, it was a good start.

2)Whereas we didn't kill civilians intentionally, we wouldn't be killing them if we weren't over there anyway. They're still innocents and they're still dying.

3)The point made wasn't that our economy was growing but was simply stating the fact that we are in a defecit. Argue the points on the table.

4)Canada doesn't have ot worry about creating a super whoopass military because they don't go around forcing their beliefs on unsuspecting nations and pissing people off. This ties in with your next point as well.

1 - Thanks, I thought so too! :D

2 - Once again, I agree. I never said it was intentional or invountary, I just said that people were being killed.

3 - Exactly! I never did mention the economy. I was talking about defecit versus a surplus - entirely different than comparing economies.

4 - I know. If a nation feels the need to have a huge military, it's probably to compensate the fact that they suffer from small penis syndrome! :D (well, sometimes)... I mean, look at Iceland and Japan. Iceland has no real standing army, and Japan has only has a defensive army.

bush is a stupid puppet who knows nothing, he cant speak in public, hell he cant even read the speeches that he has written, he has nervous laughter which is not appropriate and he is an a*&hole :headbang:

Bush couldn't get into the University of Texas for his graduate school because his grades as an under grad were too low.

Which is frightening because a chimp with its own pencil can get into UT.

Typical Liberal. Just because someone disagrees you call'em naive.



How many people have the terrorists killed? You attack the US for accidental killings but yet don't attack the terrorists that do it intentionally.



Yea the US is in a deficit but sometimes a deficit is a good thing.



No but Canada doesn't have the capacity to defend themselves. They rely to much on the US and Britain to defend them. They should stand on their own two feet and learn how to defend themselves.


Liberal(lib·er·al)
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Thanks for the compliment. Knock of Reagan name calling and think about what you're saying.

Terrorists have killed innocents, yes. Are they bastards too? Of course they are. However, two rights don't make a wrong. If all of the terrorists were to jump off a bridge, would it be okay if we accidently fell off of one? We'd still be screwed over.

How is a deficit a good thing? Explain that to me. In a world where money makes things happen, a lack of cash isn't going to get you anywhere.

Again... Canadians don't need to worry about defending themselves because they don't piss people off. Stop talking trash on them anyway. they're part of your "Might Coalition Forces" anyway.

I'm going to lunch with my girlfriend now. Try not to say too much while I'm gone.

Bush Idiot? Perhaps.

But he's one of the best wartime presidents around. Look at the statistics! Plus it seems he's the type that would spend billions so that less would die.

Good for the economy? Definitely not. There's where the Democrats should come in to save the day.

IMO, good Job Bush! You've annihilated Al-Quada.. or it's stronghold in Afghanistan.. You beat the blardy shit out of a tin-pot in Iraq. Whats next.

Well.. one sided story? Definitely.. He's bad for the country, but the worst nightmare to all of America's enemies.

bush is a stupid puppet who knows nothing, he cant speak in public, hell he cant even read the speeches that he has written, he has nervous laughter which is not appropriate and he is an a*&hole :headbang:

Then why can't the Democrats win an election?

And why did more people watch American Idol than the State of the Union (unless you add all the stations together who were showing the State of the Union).

And why, why, why, even if you add all the stations together who were showing Nancy Pelosi talk about how the President was wrong, did her ratings go down through the lower layers of bedrock?

Hmm? Why does America not want to even listen to what the Democrats have to say?

Medically? Probably not.

Practically? Yes.

Then why can't the Democrats win an election?

And why did more people watch American Idol than the State of the Union (unless you add all the stations together who were showing the State of the Union).

And why, why, why, even if you add all the stations together who were showing Nancy Pelosi talk about how the President was wrong, did her ratings go down through the lower layers of bedrock?

Hmm? Why does America not want to even listen to what the Democrats have to say?
I pity you.

After the elections, most people care a little less about the politics. We see that Bush is our President for four more years, so bitching about it isn't going to help.

Are you familiar with a guy named Bill Clinton? He was a democrat, and president for two terms. Sure, he screwed up, but he's evidence as to how this point is wrong. The president's political allignment should be of little concern when looking at the big picture.

Stop with this partisan crap. It's what's killing this country from the inside. You should be more proud as an American rather than a republican.

You don't rise to become the US president by being an idiot. That takes brains, solid financial backing, good political and business contacts, and other less savoury allies.

Who says the brains have to come from the politician himself? He needs brains, yes, but luckily for him he doesn't really need his own. He surrounds himself with some good brains, just as he has been surrounded his whole life by good political and business contacts, and solid financial backing.

And how come theres always this argument. Politicians are people. They can, and often are, idiotic. Maybe everyone didnt notice this growing up, but the popular people and the most intelligent people are not necessarily the same persons. You need to be popular to be president in a socalled democracy, not intelligent.

ok you are that kind of people who believe everything that's in the papers?
let me explain it a bit so you can understand:
fuck bush, he sucks

oh what a great argument you just made :rolleyes:

"the papers" sure is a general term. i wish you could elaborate on which paper you mean. you could be talking about quite biased papers such as "the watauga democrat" which would seemingly be in your favor. but i'm sure you do so much research everyday so you know the truth behind "the papers" right?

Who says the brains have to come from the politician himself? He needs brains, yes, but luckily for him he doesn't really need his own. He surrounds himself with some good brains, just as he has been surrounded his whole life by good political and business contacts, and solid financial backing.

And how come theres always this argument. Politicians are people. They can, and often are, idiotic. Maybe everyone didnt notice this growing up, but the popular people and the most intelligent people are not necessarily the same persons. You need to be popular to be president in a socalled democracy, not intelligent.

Here's the problem: Bush *purposely* surrounds himself with people without brains. All he wants is someone who will tell him exactly what he wants to hear. So we end up with pretty much a bunch of idiots (or people willing to pretend) surrounding an idiot.

Here's the problem: Bush *purposely* surrounds himself with people without brains. All he wants is someone who will tell him exactly what he wants to hear. So we end up with pretty much a bunch of idiots (or people willing to pretend) surrounding an idiot.

Karl Rove seems to be smarter than the whole Democratic Party put together.

I absolutely hate Bush but for rather objective reasons. From the very beginning I knew he was going to take us to war somewhere just from the way he spoke about the military during his campaign. Additionally, Iraq is going to be a complete mess and will likely turn into another Vietnaim. I'm all for promoting democracy but I don't think forcible regime changes are the way to do it. It is something the people need to decide for themselves and we can't make the decision for them. Bush went to war because he wanted to and because he wanted to be a great wartime President. All his bullshit about WMD and terrorism was just an excuse to fool the American public into letting him go fight a war.

As for him being an idiot, I don't necessarily think he is but he pretends to be one so he can appeal to the average American. (Which is another reason I dispise him) Unfortunately his intelligence was not so great as to be able to forsee how much Iraq will hurt the US. His main flaw in my opinion is that he allows his feelings and desires to obscure his judgement which now that I think about it does make him something of an idiot.

Here's the problem: Bush *purposely* surrounds himself with people without brains.

I don't think so...

All he wants is someone who will tell him exactly what he wants to hear. So we end up with pretty much a bunch of idiots (or people willing to pretend) surrounding an idiot.

Well, you can tell someone what they want to hear without being an idiot or believing it. In fact, thats what politics seems to be mostly about, minus the idiot factor.

I don't think so...

Would you like to explain why he fires competent scientists with actual standing in their field when they are about to make a report he doesn't especially want to hear and then replaces them with people with no standing in their field?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1322

Well, you can tell someone what they want to hear without being an idiot or believing it. In fact, thats what politics seems to be mostly about, minus the idiot factor.

You have to be either an idiot or unethical to do so.

Karl Rove seems to be smarter than the whole Democratic Party put together.
Damn you and your partisanship. You don't seem to have much room to trash on any political party when I look back at some of your former posts.

Would you like to explain why he fires competent scientists with actual standing in their field when they are about to make a report he doesn't especially want to hear and then replaces them with people with no standing in their field?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1322


I don't think he is ever "surrounded by" scientists in the first place. I figured by "surrounded" you meant his cabinet, campaign managers etc. The people running the show.


You have to be either an idiot or unethical to do so.

Well, unethical is different from idiocy. And it is dangerous to misunderestimate someone as being idiotic because they are unethical. Or surrounded by idiots because they are surrounded by unethical people.

in one word YES he has a brain capacity of a fish

Karl Rove seems to be smarter than the whole Democratic Party put together.


You say that like it's a good thing. You say that like the idea of creating blatetly false and misleading push polls about members of HIS OWN PARTY in order to get a puppet leader elected is somehow the right thing to do...

Rove is like the mustache twirling villains from old silent movies. Only he's a fat slob with no class and even less morals.

I don't think he is ever "surrounded by" scientists in the first place. I figured by "surrounded" you meant his cabinet, campaign managers etc. The people running the show.

If he does it in one area, why should we believe that he doesn't do it with all of his advisors? And yes, the president does have scientific advisors of all sorts.

Well, unethical is different from idiocy. And it is dangerous to misunderestimate someone as being idiotic because they are unethical. Or surrounded by idiots because they are surrounded by unethical people.

In my opinion, anyone willing to intentionally be unethical is an idiot.

IAdditionally, Iraq is going to be a complete mess and will likely turn into another Vietnaim.

No actual battles were ever lost by American forces in Vietnam. We left because we did not have the political will to remain.

Right now, the American people want to stay until we can absolutely say, "we won" no matter how stupid the reason was for going there.

Additionally, the North Vietnamese Army and the VietCong insurgents received massive logistical support and heavy weaponry from the Soviet Union and China.

The insurgents aren't receiving any real aid, in comparison.

Right now, they couldn't stop the elections.

They can't even kidnap a real American soldier - they had to put a doll up on their website and say they had an American.

They are completely desperate. They can use car bombs, but can't afford to do what the NVA and VC did in Vietnam - engage American troops in combat.

In Vietnam, they were able to attack American troops in large scale battles - and although they lost tactically, they inflicted serious losses on the Americans.

Right now, our loss rate is 1/5th the rate of Vietnam. But the last time the insurgents tried a stand up fight in an urban area (the best possible place for them to fight) they were massacred. Thousands of insurgents were killed in comparison to 40 Americans. And the city of Fallujah was lost to the Americans.

They have no ability to drive us out. The majority of the Iraqi population participated in the elections. They can't afford to attack US soldiers directly - it doesn't hurt the Americans enough, and they all die in the attempt. They lose public support by killing other Iraqis.

So in what way could it possibly be "another Vietnam"?

But then again, I think anyone who gets nominated for prez these days has to be an idiot/puppet. Now the only thinng that suprizes me is that the party system is so blatent about the puppet show itself (not that most individuals notice). :sniper:

oh what a great argument you just made :rolleyes:

"the papers" sure is a general term. i wish you could elaborate on which paper you mean. you could be talking about quite biased papers such as "the watauga democrat" which would seemingly be in your favor. but i'm sure you do so much research everyday so you know the truth behind "the papers" right?

if you want my arguments check out what i wrote in my first post, and about 'the papers' I don't say that i do all the research, what i'm trying to say is when someone says bush is intelligent, he's got this iq and blabla, that doesn't mean that it's true.
You should judge the man by his acts not by his iq!!!!

But then again, I think anyone who gets nominated for prez these days has to be an idiot/puppet. Now the only thinng that suprizes me is that the party system is so blatent about the puppet show itself (not that most individuals notice). :sniper:

I notice.

Then we should be saying that Karl Rove is the smartest man in the United States, and far smarter and more cunning than anyone in the Democratic Party.

I notice.

Then we should be saying that Karl Rove is the smartest man in the United States, and far smarter and more cunning than anyone in the Democratic Party.
You sound more like a puppet than anyone I've ever spoken to.

You sound more like a puppet than anyone I've ever spoken to.

If Karl Rove was stupid, then how did he manage to beat the Democratic Party two times in a row? With a candidate that was portrayed by the Democratic Party as a stupid idiot. On the second time around, with a candidate who was supposedly responsible for an "unpopular" war.

That's not a puppet statement. That's the cold fact.

If Karl Rove was stupid, then how did he manage to beat the Democratic Party two times in a row? With a candidate that was portrayed by the Democratic Party as a stupid idiot. On the second time around, with a candidate who was supposedly responsible for an "unpopular" war.

That's not a puppet statement. That's the cold fact.
No, you're a puppet because you're preaching what you've been preached. You're only repeating the facts that 'your party' has printed.

Now that you seem to be listening to me, would you knock off the partisan crap? Who cares what party you're in or I'm in. You should show more pride in your country than in your party. You're a perfect example as to how far in the whole this country has gone and will continue to go.

No, you're a puppet because you're preaching what you've been preached. You're only repeating the facts that 'your party' has printed.

Now that you seem to be listening to me, would you knock off the partisan crap? Who cares what party you're in or I'm in. You should show more pride in your country than in your party. You're a perfect example as to how far in the whole this country has gone and will continue to go.

You actually think I'm proud of Karl Rove? Come on!

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]No actual battles were ever lost by American forces in Vietnam. We left because we did not have the political will to remain. QUOTE]


whahahahahahah
you're funny

oops quote failed :P

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]No actual battles were ever lost by American forces in Vietnam. We left because we did not have the political will to remain. QUOTE]


whahahahahahah
you're funny

Never took a course in military history, did you? Vietnam was a long series of tactical victories in a war lost through an inability to gain domestic political will.

No actual battles were ever lost by American forces in Vietnam. We left because we did not have the political will to remain.


whahahahahahah
you're funny

He's right though QuarQ. Look at all the battles won by the Vietcong. THey won none. Zip! Zero, nada.

We only left because the war was unpopular. BTW: Did you know that it was LBJ that got us into Vietnam? Did you also know that he was a democrat? Did you know that Nixon got us out? DId you know that he was a republican?

[QUOTE=QuarQ]

Never took a course in military history, did you? Vietnam was a long series of tactical victories in a war lost through an inability to gain domestic political will.

Because of the lies that came from the LBJ administration! If he was upfront from the start and didn't micromanage the war, it might've been different.

Wow, Gore also flunked divinity school. That's amazing, isn't it?

He got worse grades in college than Bush. That's amazing, isn't it?

Hmm. Gore was sent to Vietnam - but his father was a powerful Senator - so he NEVER saw combat. He had a job as a "combat" photographer - but he never took a single picture because his father wanted the Army to guarantee his safety.

The man who claimed to have cleared farmland with a mule and a plow. Who actually spent those years living at the Cosmos Club in DC and attending an exclusive private school - no blisters on those hands, that's for sure.

Hmm. Tommy Lee Jones, his roommate in college, described Gore as "the dullest man I've ever met".

The graduate of Mouth Breather University obviously still thinks it's 2000.

The graduate of Mouth Breather University obviously still thinks it's 2000.

No. It's a perfectly valid point. Someone is saying that Bush is stupid. This is a very old topic, dating back to that election, and repeated over and over again ever since.

The Democratic candidates don't seem to have been Einsteins either (Clinton could claim to be smart, as he was a Rhodes Scholar).

The worst part of all this is that Kerry and Bush were graduates of the same school, same frat, and the same economic class.

What could either possible have in common with, or understand, in the average American?

What could either possible have in common with, or understand, in the average American?

Pretty much, let's see... nothing, thats right.

OK, I take back my earlier statement on you being hopelessly partisan.

Pretty much, let's see... nothing, thats right.

OK, I take back my earlier statement on you being hopelessly partisan.

So he could earn it back some other way? LOL!!! :D

Pretty much, let's see... nothing, thats right.

OK, I take back my earlier statement on you being hopelessly partisan.

If I was MKULTRA, I would say that the Skull and Bones fraternity had hedged their bet both ways - either way, they would rule the United States.

Yeah, well lets hope you're not MKULTRA...

Then again while I doubt its something as obvious as a fraternity thats OMG secretly controlling the world, there is an essential truth in that its always the same people, and same types of people, in power, and their real agendas are about getting and holding that power - everything else, all political philosophies espoused and rhetoric used, is basically just a tool to aid the battle for power by BSing people into looking the other way.

You dumb americans let his get away with his own WARCRIMES! the american people should force this loser to stand down!

If nothing is done its going to turn into another world war Iraq first Now IRAN AND SYRIA!!!!! whats next?? turn on the UK and France and everyone else who supported the war with IRAQ?

You dumb americans let his get away with his own WARCRIMES! the american people should force this loser to stand down!

If nothing is done its going to turn into another world war Iraq first Now IRAN AND SYRIA!!!!! whats next?? turn on the UK and France and everyone else who supported the war with IRAQ?

Excitable, aren't you?

You need a fluffle. :fluffle:

According to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
The major problem--one of the major problems, for there are several--one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

The 28th chapter of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams.

And, well, that's my political philosophy.

If Bush is an idiot, then Gore was a complete and utter moron.


Ok, you've convinced me. Gore was a complete and utter moron and therefore, by your logic, Bush is an idiot.

Ok, you've convinced me. Gore was a complete and utter moron and therefore, by your logic, Bush is an idiot.

Indeed! On to the bonus round! Would you like to try for what's behind Door Number Two?

Look people the whole reason people hate on different parties is because of what each party stands for. If you asked me what I was I would say im an independent republican, because I lean more to the ring-wing but that doesnt mean I agree with everything they do. Is bush an idiot? Whats an idiot? Every person on this planet probably has a different meaning for being stupid or an "idiot". Some people will call others idiots just because they dont agree with them or because they did something they dont like. Does it make them an idiot? No, its just a difference in oppinion. I think anyone with a good general knowledge is smart. Not just book smarts (I know some really book smart people but they lack common sense and practicality) or just common sense (aka street smarts) it takes both of them in my book. I just expect my president to do the right thing. Now some of you dont think he is doing the right thing but I do, so like I stated above, its a difference in oppinion. Now I have a reason I dont democrats (with the exception of "blue dog democrats") and its because they waste money. Thats the biggest thing. They always want to raise taxes and spend money on other people. Be it for welfare or whatever social programs they come up with. I dont understand how people think democrats help the economy. When you take money from a created sorce and give to a sorce that doesnt invest or recreate but just wastes the money nothing is gained from that, only lost. Its like a parasite or leech living off a creature, sooner or later the creature will die from the constant drain and its not the rich who take the hit. (because they can afford the high taxes) Hell its not even the poor because they dont even pay many taxes because they are classified as poor. Its people like me in the middle class that take the hit. As for the "republicans give tax cuts to the rich argument" there is a reason they do that. Its called the trickle down theory. Look it up. Also I would just like to state this, (in case anyone tries to make the bill cliton made the economy go up argument) the reason the economy got better when cliton was in office was beacase of things bush sr. did when he was in office. It is impossible for anything a president does in office to have an affect so quickly. Changes presidents make usualy are not felt or noticed untill the president leaves office. So things presidents do before one another will often bless or burden the president that comes after them. So my basic answer is no I dont think bush is an idiot. Does he make mistakes? Sure but he is a human. Do humans make mistakes yes. Sorry rant so long but reading certain posts on here really makes me mad sometimes.

If I was MKULTRA, I would say that the Skull and Bones fraternity had hedged their bet both ways - either way, they would rule the United States.

Considering there were better candidates on both sides, it makes you wonder.

Bush is not an idiot by any measure. You can disagree with his policies, so argue against them instead of throwing out hackneyed ad hominem attacks that only polarize the nation. If you stand in a crowd and say, "Bush is an idiot," maybe a quarter of the people will cheer for you in agreement, another quarter will yell at you in anger, but most people are just going to think you're a jackass. Nobody's opinion will ever be changed by statements such as this, if you actually argue against his policies logically and reasonably perhaps people will see your point of view.

I don't necessarily agree with the war in Iraq for the reasons the Bush administration put forth; however, I do feel that the war in Iraq itself was fully justified. Iraq is full of mass graves left from Saddam's genocidal policies. He has been a menace to the region in the past by invading Kuwait. I've always been surprised that the righteous, humanitarian, egalitarian left would oppose a war eliminating genocidal and dictatorial practices in favor of the hope of democracy. Of course it didn't go completely smoothly, it is a war after all. If Iraq had been left alone they would have most likely experienced a similar (worse, perhaps) struggle once Saddam died and a power struggle ensued, only to be ruled by another dictator.

Don't forget, almost everyone in Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. Not just Republicans.

And comparing Iraq to Vietnam is just as stupid as when conservatives compare Saddam to Hitler.

I must point out tht bush has the lowest IQ of any president ever, with 92. Not really that goof, for a man who is running the most powerful country in the world

Bush is not an idiot. This is a myth that has been drummed up by his political adversaries who are simply unhappy with the way he runs this country. The idea that Bush is an idiot is a notion that has been embraced by those in the media, especially by outlets like "The Daily Show" who have an obligation to maintain one specific argument against a sitting President throughout his tenure. If you think back, you will remember that they did the same thing to Clinton and Reagan before him. Clinton's legacy in the media was that of a womanizer. Every joke made about him was related to his propensity for carnal pleasures, which the media more than willingly fed to the public for 8 years. Do you honestly think that sex was all Clinton was preoccupied with? I dont. But if you watched Jay Leno or David Letterman at all during the 90's, you would see this theory advanced often. The fact is, Clinton did engage in extra-marital affairs, on more than one occasion. But the notion that this was the dominant purpose of his tenure is ludicrous. The same can be said for Bush. Sure he mispronounces a word or two occaisonally. His inability to properly pronounce "nu-cle-ar" astounds me. But can we judge him only on this? I say not. The man does have degrees from Yale and Harvard. He did own and run a Major League Baseball team as well as numerous corporations. He was the Governor of the biggest state in the union and was highly regarded by his constituants in doing so. The point is that the media does much to help us form our opinions about politicians, much like it does for everything else we see. If you have a problem with Bush's policies, more importantly a legitimate argument against them, then God bless you. You are more than welcome to your own opinions. But to imply that the man is somehow an idiot is ridiculous. Don't lower yourself to the level of Jon Stewart by calling Bush dumb. Be a competent American and criticize his policies accordingly.

I must point out tht bush has the lowest IQ of any president ever, with 92. Not really that goof, for a man who is running the most powerful country in the world

You're repeating an Internet myth.

It shows how stupid you are.

Why do you even need to ask? I should have thought the asnwer was self evident :headbang:

I must point out tht bush has the lowest IQ of any president ever, with 92. Not really that goof, for a man who is running the most powerful country in the world

And here's proof of how stupid you are for believing that Bush has the lowest IQ.

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

You're really fucking stupid now.

http://www.wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html

Bush's IQ is definitely not 92. He is not borderline retarded.

(And Texas is not the biggest state in the union... California is the most populous state and Alaska is the largest state)

I agree Military, it is easier for Bush's opposition to call him an idiot over and over than to dispute his policies, and I wouldn't be reluctant to bet that it works wonders in the polls. A lot of people are so convinced that Bush is an idiot that they think you just believe everything you are told and are naive if you disagree with them.

And when I say works wonders in the polls, I realize Bush was re-elected, but I was just attempting to point out how many people you encounter daily that think Bush is stupid. It's worked pretty well, luckily substance won over rhetoric.

I don't think he's an idiot. I just think he's dangerous, and he frightens me.

I think he's a dangerous idiot, which scares the crap out of me. Next thing we know, Ahnuld is gonna get elected president when bush and dick change the constitution.

"Wee wihl blouw uhp ahmeyica wid owr nucweear wepuns!"

Personally, I think that Bush is a COMPLETE IDIOT! There are no words to describe him accurately, so I'm not even gonna try. But there is one thing that I will give him, if that's what you call it, and that is that we wouldn't know how another president would react to 9/11 because another one wasn't there. He is still retarded. No, wait, that's an insult to retarded people. He's a know-it-all. That's my opinion.

And here's proof of how stupid you are for believing that Bush has the lowest IQ.

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

You're really fucking stupid now.

Mayb, but I dont like the bloke, no matter what. He went to war over oil in Iraq, and I bet you anything Iran is next on his agenda. Not that I'm saying he hasn't done some good things, and I admire how he dealt with terrorism after 9/11, that they should be completely stopped. Its just sometimes he has done somethings that have earned him my emenity

no Bush is not an Idiot. I am pretty sure a coomplete idiot could not become President or even get to the point where he could even be recognized as a presidential candidate (even with daddys help and money). But people from both Parties are guilty of saying so of the others candidates really. It's just easier to say so abot Bush because he jumbles his words all to often, and can't get some sayings right... especially when talking about something with a foreign/foreign-sounding name. But he does have some scary ass/destructive policies which makes him not fit for the Presidency in my opinion. Although that is just my (and millions of others opinion). I wouldnt mind seeing how he would score on an IQ test though. It'd be interesting no doubt.


and I leave you with this:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susan Brownell Anthony (1820-1906)
American feminist leader and suffragist

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
-- in 1896, addressing the National American Woman Suffrage Association meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We know that Gore was an effin moron. So, I will not say anything for Bush, or Gore, in the last election.

And a trade deficit is always a bad thing. However, that is kinda our fault for outsourcing everything, and buying everything. Well, the damn corporations.

However, the way Bush handled the war on Iraq, was a very boneheaded move. Especially having Rummy do the military handling even though his view of the military will not work in the Iraq situation. And, the tax cut, was a REALLY REALLY STUPID IDEA. He is following the Regan economical mistake. Making what were doing, very similar to what happened in Vietnam.

I mean, atleast George Bush Seinor did not make the tax cut mistake in his war with Iraq.

CHINA SPYPLANE INCIDENT:
We said something like, "America is very sorry." Which was due to a translation from english to chinese. So, who knows that Bush was trying to say to the chinese.

Little Known Fact:
Kuwait was drilling for oil behind the Iraqi boarders. They just dug a hole on their boarder, and sucked it out of the Iraqi boarders. That is why Saddam went to war with Kuwait in the first place.

So technically Saddam IS justified for invading Kuwait. But nowadays, imperialism is unacceptable.

END LITTLE KNOWN FACT


And technically, the republicans were the one's who said the OK for Iraq, since they have the majority. No longer is it split evenly. I mean, they were attempting to bribe the North Dakota (i think) to take another position in order to put in a republican.

And to think democracy is the best type of government is just naive. Strictly speaking, dictatorship is the best type of government. Look at Draco and Athens. He was a dictator, and he set up Athens for their golden age. In the Iraqi case, democracy is a very very shaky government. You have three very irate people who are ready to kill each other as soon as the Americans leave.
The only decent democracy there is, is not the denotation of democracy, but a liberal democracy. If you use the denotation of democracy, you end up with a mob rule. So, a liberal democracy it is. HOWEVER, a liberal democracy has one very important requirement, the country has to undergo a very serious war. We tore down their government, but did not anihilate their morality. So in a sense, the only way to get Iraq democracy, is to leave and let them blow each other up. It's that, or going around with bombers and carpetbombing them.

Now, leave IRAN FUCKING ALONE. Look, their most powerful party in Iran is a bunch of american educated engineers (Still iranians). Iran LIKES us. They want nukes, but to them, nukes is a pride issue. Bush just doesn't like Iran because during the time he grew up, Iran didn't like America either.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/RainyRaver/elec.jpg

Why can you not engage in a mature debate instead of throwing back the liberal rhetoric you were spoonfed? "Bush is an idiot." "Bush is retarded." "Bush likes to drown puppies."

C'mon, say something that takes half a brain to think of.

Argh, why does everyone keep posting that IQ thing?
:mad:

Why can you not engage in a mature debate instead of throwing back the liberal rhetoric you were spoonfed? "Bush is an idiot." "Bush is retarded." "Bush likes to drown puppies."

C'mon, say something that takes half a brain to think of.

Because they don't know how!

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_voter_iq.htm

The left is not smarter than the right. The right is not smarter than the left.

And here's proof of how stupid you are for believing that Bush has the lowest IQ.

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

You're really fucking stupid now.

BTW, just to let you know, retarded is anyone below 70, so he isnt borderline retarded. Up yours!

Argh, why does everyone keep posting that IQ thing?
:mad:
If you post it enough, maybe it will become true :p

i think there are people on both sides guilty of the same thing... intellecutual laziness.

Why can you not engage in a mature debate instead of throwing back the liberal rhetoric you were spoonfed? "Bush is an idiot." "Bush is retarded." "Bush likes to drown puppies."

C'mon, say something that takes half a brain to think of.

Discussing politics with people who have yet to reach puberty is unproductive.

Discussing politics with people who hide behind the anonymity of the keyboard is pointless.

Discussing politics in general is like poking yourself in the eye with a fork: sure, the first few pokes are fun, but it goes rapidly downhill from there.

And here's proof of how stupid you are for believing that Bush has the lowest IQ.

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

You're really fucking stupid now.

Maybe you haven't heard some of the things Dubya has said. He didn't even know whether there were black people in Brazil until his advisor told him (May 19, 2002).

He also thought that Mexican is a language.

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right."- Dubya, Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001.

Thanks a lot Mr. President, nice to know. I'll think I will be successful with success (as opposed to failure). Ah, Bush, you amuse me.

When I said borderline retarded I was slightly exaggerating, but average IQ is 100... Bush definitely is not less intelligent than the average person. Bush is not halfway between borderline retarded and average, that is a... retarded... proposition.

yes, he is :headbang:

I like Bush in some ways. I'm glad about the invasion of Iraq. I hope that Iran and North Korea are also invaded. The world is moving into the 21st century now and its time to get rid of the countries that could pose a threat to the future. :sniper:

He just pretends to be a somewhat dim good olden boy. Or whatever you call it.

In reality he is just very good at lining his pockets, and those of his cronies by jungleball means. He declares war because off weapons of mass destruction, then when those aren't found, to spread freedom and democracy. But off course its just to make sure HELLiburton gets all that nice Iraqi oil. Halliburton of course, being virtually owned by the Bushies. Isn't Cheney the largest stockholder there or something? Very unsuspicious.

Now if someone says 'That Bush is an evil genius.' People would either laugh (Bush? GENIUS!!!??) Or froth at the mouth. (Bush is the best president ev4r!)

What better way to hide your true identity as a fraudulent... fraud-committing person, then to pretend to be a self-righteous, but well-meaning dimwit.

So non-threatening. So appealing to the worst tendencies of the stupid. Oh yeah, we'll bring old time values back to the US.... And an economy that is going back to the twenties, whilst I, Bush the 2nd. Increase the family fortune.

After all, grandaddy did it with a Nazi mine... So why not plunder Iraq, whilst pretending that I care about giving them freedom!

Quarnessa has gotten to the bottom of the mystery!! Well done...

I like Bush in some ways. I'm glad about the invasion of Iraq. I hope that Iran and North Korea are also invaded. The world is moving into the 21st century now and its time to get rid of the countries that could pose a threat to the future. :sniper:

Um, sorry, but North Korea, are you mental! :O. If Bush invades N. Korea, China will join in, never a good thing... 1 billion + ppl in China, nealry 1/6 of the worlds current pop.

You people give Bush too much credit.

We're not plundering Iraq. Bush isn't evil. I'm sure he's a pretty nice guy.

But he's all about morality and helping Iraq. You see, he believes it is about morality. In reality, it was a really pointless thing to do.

So, Bush really is an idiot. All the way.

let's just say that if Satan (whom I don't believe in, but be my guest f you do) were to start an organizations it would probably be called something along the lines of "The Christian Coalition". YOU put on a false face so that people can relate to you and like you. That's Bush in a nutshell.

Um, sorry, but North Korea, are you mental! :O. If Bush invades N. Korea, China will join in, never a good thing... 1 billion + ppl in China, nealry 1/6 of the worlds current pop.

China will not join in. Are you stupid for the second time in the same thread?

Even if they did, you don't know anything about how wars are fought.

The numbers of troops are immaterial today. They could all be troops, and it would be immaterial.

Would you like a third chance at being stupid now?

China will not join in. Are you stupid for the second time in the same thread?

Even if they did, you don't know anything about how wars are fought.

The numbers of troops are immaterial today. They could all be troops, and it would be immaterial.

Would you like a third chance at being stupid now?


Wait... are yous aying that someone can be deemed stupid for saying something you dislike, disagree with, or is just plain wrong?

Let me tell you something Wispering Legs (spelt wrong on purpose!). I do not give damn what you or anyone else thinks of me. I am here to express my opnions. If you cant let me do that in peace, I'll be straight to the mod's. If you believe I am stupid for some of my beliefs, then you are entitled to say so, but keep it fairly subtle. Why not correct me on my faults? Then I will take that into account when I post, and we'll all be better for it

Look people the whole reason people hate on different parties is because of what each party stands for. If you asked me what I was I would say im an independent republican, because I lean more to the ring-wing but that doesnt mean I agree with everything they do. Is bush an idiot? Whats an idiot? Every person on this planet probably has a different meaning for being stupid or an "idiot". Some people will call others idiots just because they dont agree with them or because they did something they dont like. Does it make them an idiot? No, its just a difference in oppinion. I think anyone with a good general knowledge is smart. Not just book smarts (I know some really book smart people but they lack common sense and practicality) or just common sense (aka street smarts) it takes both of them in my book. I just expect my president to do the right thing. Now some of you dont think he is doing the right thing but I do, so like I stated above, its a difference in oppinion. Now I have a reason I dont democrats (with the exception of "blue dog democrats") and its because they waste money. Thats the biggest thing. They always want to raise taxes and spend money on other people. Be it for welfare or whatever social programs they come up with. I dont understand how people think democrats help the economy. When you take money from a created sorce and give to a sorce that doesnt invest or recreate but just wastes the money nothing is gained from that, only lost. Its like a parasite or leech living off a creature, sooner or later the creature will die from the constant drain and its not the rich who take the hit. (because they can afford the high taxes) Hell its not even the poor because they dont even pay many taxes because they are classified as poor. Its people like me in the middle class that take the hit. As for the "republicans give tax cuts to the rich argument" there is a reason they do that. Its called the trickle down theory. Look it up. Also I would just like to state this, (in case anyone tries to make the bill cliton made the economy go up argument) the reason the economy got better when cliton was in office was beacase of things bush sr. did when he was in office. It is impossible for anything a president does in office to have an affect so quickly. Changes presidents make usualy are not felt or noticed untill the president leaves office. So things presidents do before one another will often bless or burden the president that comes after them. So my basic answer is no I dont think bush is an idiot. Does he make mistakes? Sure but he is a human. Do humans make mistakes yes. Sorry rant so long but reading certain posts on here really makes me mad sometimes.


Wow, another trickledown coolaid drinker. Look at the truth of trickledown my, oh so misguided friend...

You say "It's simple: lower tax rates = more robust economy = more federal revenue."

But here's what's really been happening.

Let's take a look at numbers from the Department of Commerce and the Congressional Budget office. Last time I checked Congress was Republican, and the Department of Commerce answers to Bush, so clearly this isn't information from the liberal media. First, federal revenues from 1999 to present (in billions):

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
$1,827.5 $2,025.2 $1,991.2 $1,853.2 $1,782.3 $1,880.1

Here's what you should take away from this--federal revenues declined every year Bush passed or implemented a tax cut.

Well sure, you could say that if the economy was shrinking. Boy, I sure hope for their sake the economy shrank in 2001, 2002 and 2003 before growing again in 2004. Otherwise they're gonna wind up looking pretty stupid. To the Department of Commerce we go (figures given in billions)!

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
$9,268.4 $9,817.0 $10,128.0 $10,487.0 $11,004.0 $11,728.0

Aw, crap! It didn't work! The economy grew every year! Even in 2001! The truth is `supply-side economics' died during the Clinton administration. Think about it--if lower taxes = higher federal revenue, doesn't it necessarily follow that higher taxes = lower federal revenue? Despite what Republicans called `the biggest tax increase in history' the economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.7%, and federal revenues grew by $870 billion. Since Bush has been in office the economy has grown at an average annual rate of 2.52% and federal revenue is down by $145 billion.

So Clinton raises taxes. The economy does fine and federal revenues go up so fast they outpace spending. Bush taxes office and cuts taxes...a lot. What happens? The economy grows, but federal revenue declines.

Tell me how that's possible? I'd really like to hear your answers to this.

Wait... are yous aying that someone can be deemed stupid for saying something you dislike, disagree with, or is just plain wrong?

Thank you very much. Also, I am well aware of how modern wars are fought, but are we really to believe that infantry no longer plays any sort of role in war? Now you are simply being stupid

I like Bush in some ways. I'm glad about the invasion of Iraq. I hope that Iran and North Korea are also invaded. The world is moving into the 21st century now and its time to get rid of the countries that could pose a threat to the future. :sniper:

Neither of those countries would be able to be successfully invaded by Bush. The Iranians seem to be wanting peace with America, if he tries to be aggressive to them the entire UN will rise up against him. And he won't have the British then; either Tony Blair or Jack Straw (can't remember who) said the other day Britain would definitely not support any hypothetical invasion of Iran.
An invasion of North Korea would not be as unpopular with the UN but it would with the North Korean people. THe difference between North Korea and all the other despotic anti-West countries is that the North Korean government has actually managed to convince its people that it is helping them. Its the most Orwellian country in the world! If America invaded North Korea most of its citizens would be prepared to risk their lives to save the government that has brainwashed them!

When President Bush first came into office, I was just starting my freshman year in high school. Honestly, I can't say that I paid all that much attention to the media, or the election, or the presidency that year. A little less than one year later, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Administration Building occurred. That was the start of my sophomore year in high school. Unlike the previous year, I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing at that precise moment. Those of you who choose to attack the President of our country, please remember that he was duly and fairly elected by a system of government that has been, is being, and will forever be, fought for by the same people you call your brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, neighbors, friends, and the many other millions you may not know personally. None of you know who I am. None of you know where I live, or what I do for a living. To hear those of you who insult the President of our country is an insult to the many of those serving in our nation's armed forces. I ask all of you to show some respect for those who are fighting to keep our nation in a state where these sorts of misguided arguments are even possible. For better or worse, Hon. George H. W. Bush is the President of the United States of America. Perhaps he isn't the most intellectual of people. Perhaps his planning and actions in this ongoing conflict are not the courses of action that you or I would have thought best or most prudent. However, I still support the President. And for those of you who question my objectivity or motives in this, allow me to explain.

The number of casualties in the Middle East continues to rise as a result of active insurgency. Suicide bombings and car bombings are a frequent occurence. Military deployments to combat areas are at an alarming high. In January of 2004, at the start of my second semester of my senior year in high school, I signed the contract confirming my enlistment in the USAF Delayed Entry Program. In June, I graduated high school in the top 5% of my class. I turned down several scholarships, one of which was to Harvard, and in October of 2004, I left for basic training. I made the active choice to support a President that very few of my peers would have supported, even with the knowledge that I am almost guaranteed of being placed in harm's way. However, that is not the point. Yes, I support my President. He is my Commander in Chief. More importantly, I support the country I live in. I support our way of life. I support the government. But the most important fact of all, I support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am prepared to give my life in defense of this country, the Constitution, and the ideals that founded our nation. Many of you may gripe and whine that I am not 'sticking with the topic'. I don't think that it's a topic that dignifies a response along its own lines. So instead I write this, and ask all of you to have respect for something that so many fight and die for. We fight so that you don't have to face the same dangers. We are soldiers. And we are, every single one of us, proud to make that sacrifice. One of the Air Force tenets is 'service before self.' I live by that every day of my life. And so I serve for the greater good, even if the leadership isn't what everyone wants it to be. Thank you.

JUSTIN K COFFMAN, A1C, USAF
336TH TRAINING SQUADRON

Um, sorry, but North Korea, are you mental! :O. If Bush invades N. Korea, China will join in, never a good thing... 1 billion + ppl in China, nealry 1/6 of the worlds current pop.

China won't join in this round because of the Nuclear plans of North Korea. That scares China.

Someone who believes in the urban myth that Bush has an IQ of 91 can honestly be called "stupid".

Someone who believes that sheer numbers of infantry can make a difference against the US, when the US has demonstrated an ability to that 3 aircraft and in a single pass kill or wound 32,000 men and 2000 armored vehicles can honestly be called "stupid".

There is NO conventional military on the face of the earth that could last more than a few weeks against the US in a showdown. None. To believe otherwise is "stupid".

Damn. Where the hell were you taught? Number of troops immaterial?

First, it takes a 10 to 1 ratio to take over a fortified position. Its 100 to 1 when it comes to a fully armed army base.

Second, we have an army of maybe 2 ish million? Thats all the reserves too? China has one thats i THINK 10 million? Plus, its on their ground, so we have to worry about supply lines and they don't?

Anybody know how well Bush is with US prez history? I know Gore's not too swift...

Al Gore was once shown a statue of Thomas Jefferson and he asked, "Who's that?" I know cuz I saw it on TV. :p

Shouldn't knowing past US presidents be a requirement of those running for president? At least the top 10 US presidents?

Neither of those countries would be able to be successfully invaded by Bush. The Iranians seem to be wanting peace with America, if he tries to be aggressive to them the entire UN will rise up against him.
Not that I agree with invading Iran, but no one's really scared of the UNSC drafting a resolution for the US to veto.

Wow, another trickledown coolaid drinker. Look at the truth of trickledown my, oh so misguided friend...


You don't understand trickle down do you, the point of it is not to increase federal revenue, silly rabbit. The point is to stimulate economic growth.

In any case, there is lots of reasons why tax reciepts could fall, despite alteration to the tax code, for example a decline stock market and capital loss offsets could have a great impact.

Damn. Where the hell were you taught? Number of troops immaterial?

First, it takes a 10 to 1 ratio to take over a fortified position. Its 100 to 1 when it comes to a fully armed army base.

Second, we have an army of maybe 2 ish million? Thats all the reserves too? China has one thats i THINK 10 million? Plus, its on their ground, so we have to worry about supply lines and they don't?

It doesn't take a 10 to 1 ratio to take over a fortified position anymore.

You need to read, "The Transformation of American Air Power" and consult the results of the most recent invasion of Iraq.

The most salutary and fully predicted effect was the example of two Iraqi armored divisions being caught by JSTARS moving southeast out of Baghdad. Only three B-52s carrying smart bombs with smart submunitions hit them.

They lost 80 percent of their men killed or wounded in a single pass in an area over 10 square miles. Nearly all of their tanks, armored personnel carriers, and trucks were destroyed.

That's accomplishing the destruction level of the 1991 Highway of Death (which took hundreds of aircraft several hours) with 3 planes in a couple of minutes.

It's not possible to deploy ANY ground force of a conventional nature against the United States if you don't have air superiority - and China's air force is completely pathetic. If you lose air superiority, your men are going to be massacred wholesale.

So instead I write this, and ask all of you to have respect for something that so many fight and die for. We fight so that you don't have to face the same dangers. We are soldiers. And we are, every single one of us, proud to make that sacrifice.
JUSTIN K COFFMAN, A1C, USAF
336TH TRAINING SQUADRON

No one has to face any dangers. I don't mean to sound like I am not showing respect to the courage of soldiers, but was a single citizen saved by the recent war in Iraq? Maybe by the war in Afgahnistahn, as that was targetting a known terroist organisation, but Iraq? As I said, I am not intending to sound like I am showing disrespect. I just thought that members of the armed forces would be more determined than anyone else to make sure that when they risk their lives, they do it for good reason.

Someone who believes in the urban myth that Bush has an IQ of 91 can honestly be called "stupid".

Someone who believes that sheer numbers of infantry can make a difference against the US, when the US has demonstrated an ability to that 3 aircraft and in a single pass kill or wound 32,000 men and 2000 armored vehicles can honestly be called "stupid".

There is NO conventional military on the face of the earth that could last more than a few weeks against the US in a showdown. None. To believe otherwise is "stupid".

Interesting that you find it ok to call someone stupid when they have a wrong fact or two.

So then it's okay to call Bush stupid? I mean he hasn't been 100% right during his tenure has he?

OH well.... nice to see that double standard so strongly at work as usual on NS.

Not that I agree with invading Iran, but no one's really scared of the UNSC drafting a resolution for the US to veto.

Well they ought to be, if if they're not, something's wrong with the system. When a country can do whatever the hell it likes with no fear of reprise from the UN, something is wrong.

It doesn't take a 10 to 1 ratio to take over a fortified position anymore.

You need to read, "The Transformation of American Air Power" and consult the results of the most recent invasion of Iraq.

The most salutary and fully predicted effect was the example of two Iraqi armored divisions being caught by JSTARS moving southeast out of Baghdad. Only three B-52s carrying smart bombs with smart submunitions hit them.

They lost 80 percent of their men killed or wounded in a single pass in an area over 10 square miles. Nearly all of their tanks, armored personnel carriers, and trucks were destroyed.

That's accomplishing the destruction level of the 1991 Highway of Death (which took hundreds of aircraft several hours) with 3 planes in a couple of minutes.

It's not possible to deploy ANY ground force of a conventional nature against the United States if you don't have air superiority - and China's air force is completely pathetic. If you lose air superiority, your men are going to be massacred wholesale.

VIETNAM! the USAF had air superiority, but they couldn't eliminate the Viet Cong

Well they ought to be, if if they're not, something's wrong with the system. When a country can do whatever the hell it likes with no fear of reprise from the UN, something is wrong.
Something's been wrong for quite a long time now, then :p

Interesting that you find it ok to call someone stupid when they have a wrong fact or two.

So then it's okay to call Bush stupid? I mean he hasn't been 100% right during his tenure has he?

OH well.... nice to see that double standard so strongly at work as usual on NS.

Call Bush stupid all you like. But when you assert facts...

Get a hold of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801438160/qid=1107463624/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1562381-7966551?v=glance&s=books

Then you'll see how impotent the Chinese armed forces are.

or wait... maybe you think that Bush was 100% correct in everything that he has ever said and done WL.


Bush paraphrased:

"We cannot completely defeat terrorism"

"We will completely defeat terrorism"

"Iraq has WMD's that they can deploy within 45 minutes!!!! OMFG"


If so then wouldn't that make you stupid because you were wrong about something? I guess by your own standards it would. Well you shouldn't be so hard on yoruself.

Call Bush stupid all you like. But when you assert facts...


Well like I said... by your standards - if you assert facts that are wrong then you must be stupid apparently.

Plus maybe you could direct me to where I called bush stupid.

or wait... maybe you think that Bush was 100% correct in everything that he has ever said and done WL.
Well you shouldn't be so hard on yoruself.

Bush paraphrased:

"We cannot completely defeat terrorism"

"We will completely defeat terrorism"

"Iraq has WMD's that they can deploy within 45 minutes!!!! OMFG"

If so then wouldn't that make you stupid because you were wrong about something? I guess by your own standards it would.

I haven't said in this thread, or any other, that Bush is 100% correct.

I also haven't said any of the subsequent phrases in your quote.

I have said that the Chinese military would be decimated and defeated if it engaged in a conventional attack on US forces.

There is both scholarly and real life evidence and analysis to back up that claim.

Judging someone intelligence by what you see on TV and read on the internet and newspapers is plain stupid. I have no clue if Bush is smart or stupid so for me to guess would be stupid.

Judging someone intelligence by what you see on TV and read on the internet and newspapers is plain stupid. I have no clue if Bush is smart or stupid so for me to guess would be stupid.

There's someone on this thread who believes a rumor he heard about Bush's IQ, and was repeating it.

The Bush IQ urban myth has been discredited by multiple sources.

Snopes is widely considered to be fairly accurate and reliable as a source.

Snopes says it's a myth. But Snake Eater wants to maintain that Bush's IQ is as the rumor states - because he wants desperately to believe it.

He has no way to back that up as a fact.

I haven't said in this thread, or any other, that Bush is 100% correct.

I also haven't said any of the subsequent phrases in your quote.

I have said that the Chinese military would be decimated and defeated if it engaged in a conventional attack on US forces.

There is both scholarly and real life evidence and analysis to back up that claim.

So then Bush must be stupid because he has said things, not backed up by fact and was shown to be wrong?

Maybe you are being too hard on Bush

Well they ought to be, if if they're not, something's wrong with the system. When a country can do whatever the hell it likes with no fear of reprise from the UN, something is wrong.
This was a scary post. You really don't get it, do you? The UN is the most singularly worthless organization on the planet today. For all it's pretenses of glory, it has no more real power than the League did. See now, here's the trick. The UN, like the League, has no more power than it's members give it. The only way for the UN to have real power is if every nation is a member, in full compliance with UN policies. And if every nation meets those conditions, there's no need for it. Simplified, the UN, like all idealist organizations, is unnecessary at best once it's goals are achieved, and needs to have it's goals achieved before they can be accomplished. That said, you were right on one thing, something is wrong, the UN. From conception, it, like the League, has been little more than a gathering of people without real jobs to argue over petty differences (that and a place for large, powerful countries to try and embarass each other - USA & USSR)

JUSTIN K COFFMAN, A1C, USAF
336TH TRAINING SQUADRONTop notch man. Top notch. If it weren't for my back (I was born with spinal problems) I'd be there with you.

So then Bush must be stupid because he has said things, not backed up by fact and was shown to be wrong?

Maybe you are being too hard on Bush

Take the WMD for example.

The only thing he had to go on was reports from the CIA and British Intelligence that "Saddam had WMD".

If you look at the track record of the CIA in predicting anything except the next sunrise, you would take what they said with a grain of salt. It stands to reason that more proof would be required before doing something so grave as to invade another country.

Not that anyone could stop the US from invading. So we should have been all the more careful. Can you see how nervous the rest of the world is about US military adventurism?

In the past, the US could actually be stopped. Now, everyone is silently admitting that it's not possible. And that scares them.

So yes, Bush saying "Saddam has WMD" was rather stupid. But it's not on the basis of a rumored IQ test. It's on the basis of his apparent lack of judgment.

Get a hold of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801438160/qid=1107463624/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1562381-7966551?v=glance&s=books

Then you'll see how impotent the Chinese armed forces are.

Nice. I'll take alook at it.

What is your opinion on Bush? Im not saying that I hate bush, I just want to know what people all over the world think....Thank you
Not an idiot - far too manipulative to be stupid, I think.

He sure knows how to woo the American population, for one.

(Think a guy who went to an elite private high school on the East Coast and then Yale mispronounces words naturally? No. It's just that focus groups have shown that making minor mistakes in public generally makes one more likeable.)

Hes a dumb idiot whos messing up our country and fortunately screwing over the Republican party!

Hes a dumb idiot whos messing up our country and fortunately screwing over the Republican party!

I sincerely doubt it!

Everyone ready for the uber-liberal comment????

Bush is a genius........ for a Republican

And i think socialism would work better anyway

Not an idiot - far too manipulative to be stupid, I think.

He sure knows how to woo the American population, for one.

(Think a guy who went to an elite private high school on the East Coast and then Yale mispronounces words naturally? No. It's just that focus groups have shown that making minor mistakes in public generally makes one more likeable.)

Or his writers know how to write lovely speeches. Believe me, it's hard not to shed a tear until you get a grip and realize it's all rhetoric(as are all politcians speechs, it's about extremes as usual). Of course if you watched the debates you're *still* going to think that he was the manipulative(and clever) one. I guess this is the old 'difference of opinion' thing. Also it's about how guillible people are. I've generally been guillable in the past(in private life), but with Bush and his admin everything they say just seems to shout 'bullshit'. Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't feel wrong.

http://www.jibjab.com/play.asp?contentid=162&groupid=2

It's a good, refreshing laugh about politics. =)

i didn't read anything of this thread,but i think(back to the question) he is not the idiot here,the people are.and he knows it.beeing himself one of them(idiots) :p

Someone who believes in the urban myth that Bush has an IQ of 91 can honestly be called "stupid".

Someone who believes that sheer numbers of infantry can make a difference against the US, when the US has demonstrated an ability to that 3 aircraft and in a single pass kill or wound 32,000 men and 2000 armored vehicles can honestly be called "stupid".

There is NO conventional military on the face of the earth that could last more than a few weeks against the US in a showdown. None. To believe otherwise is "stupid".

I don't know if anybody's already told you this... but how long have we been in Iraq again? We're having trouble against underarmed insurgents.

Jimmy Carter had an IQ of 175 (according to Carter). He wasn't a very effective president. He was lacking severely in the ability to make strategic, hard logic decisions.

All a standard IQ is able to prove is how well a person does in verbal and math skills. It has nothing to do with military or social skills.

I don't know if anybody's already told you this... but how long have we been in Iraq again? We're having trouble against underarmed insurgents.

They have plenty enough arms to engage in guerilla warfare. They're smart enough to know that it's the only thing that works against superior firepower.

This war (sadly) won't ever really end...no matter who the president is.

The worst Winston Churchill (Bush) is better than the best Neville Chamberlain (Kerry or any other democrat), any time.

I've said this before, but people tend to forget how Churchill (just like Bush) was seen as a comical, deluded, warmongering figure... at least until Dunkirk and the decisive defeat of the British Expeditionary Force by the Nazis. After that everyone thought he was God, practically.

The president is not an idiot as you people seem to think. He did get a masters. And any degree at Harvard is a pretty good one.

Also, he does not seem to have to swear when describing his feelings about people. Honestly guys this is a forum, not a bawdyhouse.

Third, perhaps we as americans do not want to elect geniuses. Clinton was not elected for his stunning intelect. Neither was Reagan. Carter and ford were not Great either. THey are not stupid but it wasnt the degrees that got them elected. Obviously people think Bush is capable to be reelected because he was.

If you want to call Bush an idiot, fine. But then the best that the democratic party could do was lose to him, over , and ovar, and over...
I love the flaming religous ignorance of my beautiful country, something is wrong when people vote out of faith not intelligence :sniper:

The worst Winston Churchill (Bush) is better than the best Neville Chamberlain (Kerry or any other democrat), any time.

I've said this before, but people tend to forget how Churchill (just like Bush) was seen as a comical, deluded, warmongering figure... at least until Dunkirk and the decisive defeat of the British Expeditionary Force by the Nazis. After that everyone thought he was God, practically.
When Kerry was in Vietnam where was bush? what was he doing? Not fighting for his country i think it had something to do with the white devil

Everyone ready for the uber-liberal comment????

Bush is a genius........ for a Republican

And i think socialism would work better anyway
yeah F*ck capitalism

When Kerry was in Vietnam where was bush? what was he doing? Not fighting for his country i think it had something to do with the white devil

To busy writing up citations for his purple hearts! As for Bush, he was in the NATIONAL GUARD, i.e. military on the home front!

I don't know if anybody's already told you this... but how long have we been in Iraq again? We're having trouble against underarmed insurgents.
Insurgency is the ONLY option any country has against US military force.

Any conventional military would be wiped out in a matter of weeks.

The problem with a modern insurgency is that the US learned something from Vietnam. The insurgency will be limited to occasional shooting (never outright fighting as they were able to do in Vietnam) because direct confrontation (as they tried in Fallujah) is suicidal. Their primary attack methods have been reduced to improvised explosives that kill people at random and the occasional hostage taking (they are unable to kidnap US soldiers anymore).

The US has reduced their casualty rate to between 1/5 and 1/10th of the rate experienced in Vietnam. A substantial improvement.

And in engagements with insurgents in direct action (where the insurgents now make the mistake of remaining in the ambush too long, or provoke action as they did in Fallujah) the insurgents have a casualty rate over 90 percent. Far, far better than we did in Vietnam.

Notice during this recent election that the insurgents were unable to intimidate the whole country - they hold only a small area, and that tenuously. They have no real ability to take the country over again.

Counterinsurgency, US style, has been radically improved and optimized. Naysaying about how "it's like Vietnam" and "we'll lose like we did in Vietnam" is a load of crap.

Wow, Gore also flunked divinity school. That's amazing, isn't it?

Even though I just bumped into this thread and it's not remotely dedicated to Gore... what does divinity school have to do with anything? Seriously, how is it amazing that anyone flunked it? Is it critical somehow to operating a nation or otherwise being an effective politician? It seems fairly irrelevant to me.

I am an American. Take it from me: Is Bush an Idiot? Absolutely. I can't stand him or most Republicans for that matter.

Even though I just bumped into this thread and it's not remotely dedicated to Gore... what does divinity school have to do with anything? Seriously, how is it amazing that anyone flunked it? Is it critical somehow to operating a nation or otherwise being an effective politician? It seems fairly irrelevant to me.

It's perfectly valid to bring up, as the thread is inherently partisan, and it's fair to make comparisons.

They are using any reference to Bush's ability in school, so it's perfectly OK to make similar comparisons to Gore (or Kerry's) abilities in school.

Gore just happened to go to divinity school. And law school.

If he's so bright, how did he flunk out of both?

Insurgency is the ONLY option any country has against US military force.

Any conventional military would be wiped out in a matter of weeks.

The problem with a modern insurgency is that the US learned something from Vietnam. The insurgency will be limited to occasional shooting (never outright fighting as they were able to do in Vietnam) because direct confrontation (as they tried in Fallujah) is suicidal. Their primary attack methods have been reduced to improvised explosives that kill people at random and the occasional hostage taking (they are unable to kidnap US soldiers anymore).

The US has reduced their casualty rate to between 1/5 and 1/10th of the rate experienced in Vietnam. A substantial improvement.

And in engagements with insurgents in direct action (where the insurgents now make the mistake of remaining in the ambush too long, or provoke action as they did in Fallujah) the insurgents have a casualty rate over 90 percent. Far, far better than we did in Vietnam.

Notice during this recent election that the insurgents were unable to intimidate the whole country - they hold only a small area, and that tenuously. They have no real ability to take the country over again.

Counterinsurgency, US style, has been radically improved and optimized. Naysaying about how "it's like Vietnam" and "we'll lose like we did in Vietnam" is a load of crap.

Let me tell you something. This is a little secret as to why China has us by the proverbial nutsack.

It's called economy. It's called goods, trading.

Made in China. Ever heard that before? China owns us.

The US has reduced their casualty rate to between 1/5 and 1/10th of the rate experienced in Vietnam. A substantial improvement.

Well, that IS nice. But soldiers are still dying continually, and will continue to until the entire situation is exited. And it doesn't look like that's going to be very soon.

And in engagements with insurgents in direct action (where the insurgents now make the mistake of remaining in the ambush too long, or provoke action as they did in Fallujah) the insurgents have a casualty rate over 90 percent. Far, far better than we did in Vietnam.

Okay, but how often are in the insurgents IN direct action? They seem to like guerrilla tactics just fine. And as far as killing significantly more people being 'far, far better'... not so much.

Notice during this recent election that the insurgents were unable to intimidate the whole country - they hold only a small area, and that tenuously. They have no real ability to take the country over again.

But neither is the US ever going to consolidate ITS influence either. For as many insurgents as we seem to be whacking, there's always more. Like ants. Frantic stamping and poisoning and even blowtorching isn't going to eliminate such a problem.

Counterinsurgency, US style, has been radically improved and optimized. Naysaying about how "it's like Vietnam" and "we'll lose like we did in Vietnam" is a load of crap.

Just because the U.S. is more technologically advanced than 30 years ago doesn't mean it's destined to smack every obstacle down. It's the nature of the war, and the lack of enthusiasm for it that recalls Vietnam. What's worse is this conflict was more truly instigated by greed, not any paranoia over a Communist domino effect. Not that any kind of international interference at that level is good, but Bush's clandestine motives aren't enough for me to condone sticking our soldiers in the morass that is Iraq for an indeterminate-- and seemingly interminable-- amount of time.

It's perfectly valid to bring up, as the thread is inherently partisan, and it's fair to make comparisons.

They are using any reference to Bush's ability in school, so it's perfectly OK to make similar comparisons to Gore (or Kerry's) abilities in school.

Gore just happened to go to divinity school. And law school.

If he's so bright, how did he flunk out of both?

A general question was asked regarding to Bush being an idiot. No comparisons were made and you started throwing out the school records that we've seen on a few other threads already.

It's perfectly valid to bring up, as the thread is inherently partisan, and it's fair to make comparisons.

An opinion about one particular person who happens to belong to one particular political party is not inherently partisan. Come off the martyr complex.

Let me tell you something. This is a little secret as to why China has us by the proverbial nutsack.

It's called economy. It's called goods, trading.

Made in China. Ever heard that before? China owns us.

Please. So a considerable amount with them but they don't own us.

Also, about the person talking about the isurgency, It was well said. Good analysis.

A general question was asked regarding to Bush being an idiot. No comparisons were made and you started throwing out the school records that we've seen on a few other threads already.

That's because someone posted the urban myth that Bush has an IQ of 91.

Why aren't you on him about that?

Wow, ok that made no sense. I'm on a new keyboard so let me re-state.

We do trade a consderable amount with them but they don't own us. Far from it.

And, a correction: Insurgency*** Sorry people.

Gore just happened to go to divinity school. And law school.

If he's so bright, how did he flunk out of both?

Gore may be a hopeless moron. Hell, he WENT to divinity school in the first place. But even though he makes Bush looks better by contrast, Bush by no means made an impressive accomplishment. Ivy league schools inflate grades and push the student through if necessary-- assuming, of course, they have the funds and clout for it. And the fact that Bush got through by the skin of his teeth makes me wonder if he should've made it at all.

That's because someone posted the urban myth that Bush has an IQ of 91.

Why aren't you on him about that?

Bush is very intelligent. Though I do not know his IQ, I do know he scored 1300+ on his SATs in HS. WHich is high for that time.

Please. So a considerable amount with them but they don't own us.

Also, about the person talking about the isurgency, It was well said. Good analysis.
The insurgency point still proves him wrong. We're so advanced and powerful that a bunch of people hiding in houses can take us out. We're not almighty and it's embarassing as an American to be associated with these nut jobs who think we could conquer the world in a matter of weaks.

Sure, they don't own us. Maybe I should have stapled a big flyer to the post saying I was speaking figuratively. I don't even know why he started talking about attacking China. Invading China would be stupid, a waste of life, and a waste of time.

We could not take them, pure and simple.

www.westernconservative.com

That's because someone posted the urban myth that Bush has an IQ of 91.

Why aren't you on him about that?
Because I ignored it. That wasn't posted either until you went on about Gore. Nobody said anything about Gore, who's been out of the picture since 2000.

I'll say it again:

Nobody cares about Al Gore

Because I ignored it. That wasn't posted either until you went on about Gore. Nobody said anything about Gore, who's been out of the picture since 2000.

I'll say it again:

Nobody cares about Al Gore

Why do you care about Bush? He's President, has both houses of Congress, and is evidently doing well in US public opinion now.

Can saying "he's an idiot" actually have any effect? They've been saying that ever since he started running the first time, on every channel, in every newspaper, and on every comedy show.

Looks like no one listened, eh?

The only thing that people who think he's an idiot may have going for themselves is the knowledge that he's not able to run for office again.

You can't impeach a President because you think he's stupid.

Bush is very intelligent. Though I do not know his IQ, I do know he scored 1300+ on his SATs in HS. WHich is high for that time.

I'm pretty sure he made a 1206 on the SAT. Still good, but I made higher than that in 7th grade on the PSAT. I'm not sure what you mean by 'high for that time.' For his generation, for being in high school, or what? And there is a method to taking the SAT... so one doesn't even have to be that intelligent to make a 1200 if he understands HOW to take the test. I'd like to see how he would do on the newer SAT-- particularly with any writing/essay portions.
So a 1206 doesn't quite vindicate him, though it doesn't nearly condemn him either.

Why do you care about Bush? He's President, has both houses of Congress, and is evidently doing well in US public opinion now.

Can saying "he's an idiot" actually have any effect? They've been saying that ever since he started running the first time, on every channel, in every newspaper, and on every comedy show.

Looks like no one listened, eh?

The only thing that people who think he's an idiot may have going for themselves is the knowledge that he's not able to run for office again.

You can't impeach a President because you think he's stupid.

Go read all of my posts in this thread. Go ahead, I'll wait.


...


...


Hm, that's funny... I never said anything about him being stupid. Strange, huh. The only thing I've complained about is your neoconservative partisanship and how that's the problem with our country.

Too many people saying "Stupid democrat/republicans, I hate them!"

My advice to you is to realize that we're all Americans, we're all in the same country, so it might do you good to not hate the other half of your country's population.

Why do you care about Bush? He's President, has both houses of Congress, and is evidently doing well in US public opinion now.
'Evidently doing well' meaning what? Where's a recent poll? It's been a few months since I checked one by any organization, and the last one I saw had Bush teetering at the 50th percentile of approval. Not stellar, not even 'well.' I'd call that borderline.

Can saying "he's an idiot" actually have any effect? They've been saying that ever since he started running the first time, on every channel, in every newspaper, and on every comedy show.

Looks like no one listened, eh?

Oh, people listen. We listen all the time. If it weren't for Bush's actions and history in the first place, no one would be calling him an idiot now... so labeling him an 'idiot' is more an effect than a cause. Plus, there's people who indiscriminately bash every president just because, but that's not the only kind of flak Bush is getting. He's getting legitimate accusations. 'Idiot' is still basically an ad hominem insult... but it's so fun to say. ;)

The only thing that people who think he's an idiot may have going for themselves is the knowledge that he's not able to run for office again.

*cue the angelic choir*
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

You can't impeach a President because you think he's stupid.
Of course not. But if the President is in fact stupid, he may very well lead himself to such a situation himself.

Aha! I found some polls. So G. W. isn't doing abominably. But not stellar either. Meh.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Oh, people listen. We listen all the time. If it weren't for Bush's actions and history in the first place, no one would be calling him an idiot now... so labeling him an 'idiot' is more an effect than a cause. Plus, there's people who indiscriminately bash every president just because, but that's not the only kind of flak Bush is getting. He's getting legitimate accusations. 'Idiot' is still basically an ad hominem insult... but it's so fun to say. ;)


By that logic, Clinton was stupid for letting the world find out he had spooged on an intern's dress.

That was fun to say.

What annoys me about this current US administration is not the President himself, but the manner in which those close to him respond towards any opposition to American foreign policy. I especially object to the word "appeasement" being thrown about in such liberal amounts (Rumsfeld immediately comes to mind). As an aside, I initially supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and have not abandoned hope of a successful democratic transition in light of the recent high turnout in the elections (if only such institutions had been established sooner). What I did object to was the spurning of multilateralism and the seemingly unshakeable faith in the premise that "might makes right".

George W. Bush appears to me (as a foreign observer) to be a man of strong conviction and a genuine idealist. I find it difficult to see how idealism and idiocy can be synthesised. Idiot? No. Single-minded? Yes.

By that logic, Clinton was stupid for letting the world find out he had spooged on an intern's dress.

That was fun to say.

Well, he was. Subtlety in extramarital affairs is a good thing.

What annoys me about this current US administration is not the President himself, but the manner in which those close to him respond towards any opposition to American foreign policy. I especially object to the word "appeasement" being thrown about in such liberal amounts (Rumsfeld immediately comes to mind). As an aside, I initially supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and have not abandoned hope of a successful democratic transition in light of the recent high turnout in the elections (if only such institutions had been established sooner). What I did object to was the spurning of multilateralism and the seemingly unshakeable faith in the premise that "might makes right".

George W. Bush appears to me (as a foreign observer) to be a man of strong conviction and a genuine idealist. I find it difficult to see how idealism and idiocy can be synthesised. Idiot? No. Single-minded? Yes.

Germany and France and Russia would NEVER have invaded Iraq, nor would they ever supported such an invasion.

No matter what. Even if Saddam himself had appeared on Iraqi TV before the US invasion with a 55-gallon drum full of smallpox, and even if he had admitted, "yes, this is smallpox, as you can see", and even if he had a few people deliberately infected so that we could watch them die of smallpox over a few weeks.

And...

No matter what. Even though there wasn't any WMD, whether or not we knew it to be true, the US would have invaded anyway.

Even if they had participated in the invasion, Germany and France do not have a credible ability to project power - their contributions would have been as small or smaller than the UK efforts. So, even if the so-called "big nations" had put in some troops, it wouldn't have been any more significant than the effort that they currently rant is "a small effort" alongside US forces.

Let me tell you something. This is a little secret as to why China has us by the proverbial nutsack.

It's called economy. It's called goods, trading.

Made in China. Ever heard that before? China owns us.

However, their military sucks.

In North Korea, and this is just coming out and I just learned this in my World Politics Class, China lost 1,000,000 troops. How many did the US lose fighting them in North Korea?

China doesn't have the technology for a fight with the US. Yea they have millions of people but it is almost worthless if you don't have the technology to back it up with.

He's succesfuly made the whole world hate us.

I have a bet going on with some of my friends right now. I think that if I tell Bushed that the Statue of Libraty is french (since it is) and suggest that we should get rid of it becuase the french are so "anti-American' he'll actually try.

I want a President that can speak higher than a 6th grade level and didn't buy his way through school. What happened to the days where it wasn't money or even a collage education that won the presendency, it was what the country reall thought of you.

Sorry for the spelling errors!

Why do people keep saying that Bush bought his way through school? Where's the proof? Making an assertion like that doesn't make it true.

Why do people keep saying that Bush bought his way through school? Where's the proof? Making an assertion like that doesn't make it true.

I'm basing my judgment on the fact that the Bush family has influence and money, and investigations (written reports and exposes on programs like 20/20) show that schools like Harvard and Yale inflate grades and are more willing to turn a blind eye to poor academic performance from wealthy alumni children and influential people period. The ivy league attitude tends to be 'they paid for a passing grade, so give it to them.'

We know Bush is no genius-- even if he's not an idiot-- so it's amazing to me that he got through such a supposedly competitive school, especially considering his less-than-scholarly habits. I'm not asserting that he or his father bribed the school or anything quite so underhanded as that; I'm saying that based on Bush's academic records and his family's status, and the tradition of ivy league schools to be more forgiving of those who contribute financially, it's likely he slipped by with a degree he didn't truly earn.

Have you heard of the Peter Principle?

Bush is what happens when you push the Peter Principle as far as it can go. He probably would make a good Dog-Catcher, or Superintendent of Highways in a local township somewhere. But he is WAY over his head, and what little ability he has.

Dick Cheney, on the other hand, has the appropriate first name.

And Rumsfeld is just...well, think of the lowest, slimiest, foulest thing you can think of. Whatever you came up with is about four levels above Rummy.

What were are choices again? Face it, it was the lesser of two evils even though I think both of them are sheisty.. the Vice President runs the shadow government and if it was him in charge we would be living in caves and speaking in grunts and clicks..Condi Rice is downright frightening. Lord help us if she has aspirations to greatness and so on and so on. What really scares me is Governor Arnold 'Terminator' Schwarzenneger wants to amend the Constitution so he can take a crack at the Seat of Ultimate Evil. I am packing my bags and moving to some South Pacific island and take my chances there.

your own personal view of politics=which set of lies you choose to believe. :headbang:
I want my own damn country. My own damn privately owned country. Anyone can do whatever they want.... the only punishment would be banishment. The only crimes would be rape murder and torture, and well, just being mean in general.

What is your opinion on Bush? Im not saying that I hate bush, I just want to know what people all over the world think....Thank you

I don't think Bush is stupid per se, I think he has trouble with the English language, I think he has trouble expressing himself properly and I think he's a very dangerous man.

I'm basing my judgment on the fact that the Bush family has influence and money, and investigations (written reports and exposes on programs like 20/20) show that schools like Harvard and Yale inflate grades and are more willing to turn a blind eye to poor academic performance from wealthy alumni children and influential people period. The ivy league attitude tends to be 'they paid for a passing grade, so give it to them.'

We know Bush is no genius-- even if he's not an idiot-- so it's amazing to me that he got through such a supposedly competitive school, especially considering his less-than-scholarly habits. I'm not asserting that he or his father bribed the school or anything quite so underhanded as that; I'm saying that based on Bush's academic records and his family's status, and the tradition of ivy league schools to be more forgiving of those who contribute financially, it's likely he slipped by with a degree he didn't truly earn.

Then we can assume that John F. Kennedy and John Kerry and Al Gore bought their grades and degrees as well. If we're going to discount their actual academic performance because they "might" have bought the grades or degrees, then we can assume that we'll have to look for some other indication of non-idiocy.

I've noticed that it's rather hard to be an idiot and get to fly a fighter plane. The requirements (even back in Bush's youth) implied an understanding of the mathematics and engineering involved in jet flight - or they wouldn't even let you sit in the seat and fly it by yourself.

I've talked to more than one pilot from that time period (and one who used to run the training simulators from the late 1950s to the early 1980s), and they seem to be unanimous in the idea that Bush would have had to possessed an excellent grasp of advanced mathematics in order to become a fighter pilot - even a part-time one in the National Guard.

So we have records that he flew a jet fighter, solo. He evidently can still fly jets and land them on carriers.

Still an idiot?

I've talked to more than one pilot from that time period (and one who used to run the training simulators from the late 1950s to the early 1980s), and they seem to be unanimous in the idea that Bush would have had to possessed an excellent grasp of advanced mathematics in order to become a fighter pilot - even a part-time one in the National Guard.

So we have records that he flew a jet fighter, solo. He evidently can still fly jets and land them on carriers.

Still an idiot?

Yes. Just because pilots you've talked to agree that you can't be an idiot and become a pilot - not surprising that they would say that, since they're pilots, no? - doesn't mean that it's a rule or that there aren't exceptions.

Yes. Just because pilots you've talked to agree that you can't be an idiot and become a pilot - not surprising that they would say that, since they're pilots, no? - doesn't mean that it's a rule or that there aren't exceptions.

I was shown one of the tests that pilots in training at Pax River have to pass. The test hasn't changed much over the years, because the math and physics of supersonic flight haven't changed much.

If you don't have a grasp of advanced mathematics, you have no chance to pass the test. There are no exceptions.

The Air Force has similar tests. No exceptions to getting flight status.

I don't think that Bush is a real idiot. You can't be that cunning, skilled and manipulative and be stupid. (Let's face it, despite my hatred of his policy, he's brilliantly talented politician.)

But Bush seems to want to make everyone think he is stupid.

I was shown one of the tests that pilots in training at Pax River have to pass. The test hasn't changed much over the years, because the math and physics of supersonic flight haven't changed much.

If you don't have a grasp of advanced mathematics, you have no chance to pass the test. There are no exceptions.

The Air Force has similar tests. No exceptions to getting flight status.

Right, well there's no exeptions about letting violent terrorists on board civilian aircraft. It's right there in the rules with a sign: TERRORISTS NOT ALLOWED. And yet, despite the best efforts of the government to enforce the rules, it slipped up.

Similarly it could slip up regarding air force tests, for some reason. They are not infallible any more than any other organization.

Right, well there's no exeptions about letting violent terrorists on board civilian aircraft. It's right there in the rules with a sign: TERRORISTS NOT ALLOWED. And yet, despite the best efforts of the government to enforce the rules, it slipped up.

Similarly it could slip up regarding air force tests, for some reason. They are not infallible any more than any other organization.

IIRC, none of the 19 hijackers were identified to the FAA as being terrorists. The State Department might have known of some of them, but they were not required to notify anyone, nor was the CIA or FBI talking.

Everyone was, to the letter of the law, following the regulations. From a strictly bureaucratic standpoint, everyone was doing what they were "required" to do.

Most of the 19 hijackers were not even on any watch lists, as they had never associated with terrorists before this first action. So they were, legally and otherwise, completely legal passengers.

The math in flying combat jets in peacetime exercises is constantly used. Some of it you have to do in your head when flying - the F-102 flown by Bush was commonly used in bomber intercept exercises. Since they didn't have the elaborate computers we have now, nor the elaborate ground direction systems we have now, a pilot had to , on his own, figure out the appropriate flight path on their own, in their head.

It's a calculus problem, yes. In your head. Which you constantly recalculate as you are told the changing position of the target (which turns to try to mess up your calculation).

So when Bush did his exercises, of which the bomber intercept is the only one you could do in an F-102 (it's not a ground attack aircraft, it's an interceptor only), he never had to do calculus in his head, and was constantly told the answers by someone paid by his father.

You're saying he never had to take the classes that others took as pilots - never did the same training - never took the same tests - and yet was allowed to fly (I guess he just flew around in circles).

Before the advent of computer-controlled trim systems, fighter pilots had to adjust trim by pumping fuel from tank to tank and mathematically predict where it should be - in flight - using math in your head - compensating for fuel consumption - and the trim in subsonic flight is not the same as transonic or supersonic - and it varies by altitude as well. So Bush must have had someone telling him what to do every minute he was in that plane...

Which occurrence do you think is more likely? That he's stupid and that everywhere he went as a fighter pilot, there was someone to tell him what to do, or that he's actually smarter than his public reputation?

I don't think that Bush is a real idiot. You can't be that cunning, skilled and manipulative and be stupid. (Let's face it, despite my hatred of his policy, he's brilliantly talented politician.)

But Bush seems to want to make everyone think he is stupid.First, let me say that I really love the title of this thread. Let's me say it all by just saying, "YES!"

Second - is he, as you suggest, cunning, skilled and manipulative? Or his he cunningly and skillfully manipulated? I tend to think the later.

Is Bush an idiot? Short answer: Yes.

The math in flying combat jets in peacetime exercises is constantly used. Some of it you have to do in your head when flying - the F-102 flown by Bush was commonly used in bomber intercept exercises. Since they didn't have the elaborate computers we have now, nor the elaborate ground direction systems we have now, a pilot had to , on his own, figure out the appropriate flight path on their own, in their head.

It's a calculus problem, yes. In your head. Which you constantly recalculate as you are told the changing position of the target (which turns to try to mess up your calculation).

So when Bush did his exercises, of which the bomber intercept is the only one you could do in an F-102 (it's not a ground attack aircraft, it's an interceptor only), he never had to do calculus in his head, and was constantly told the answers by someone paid by his father.

You're saying he never had to take the classes that others took as pilots - never did the same training - never took the same tests - and yet was allowed to fly (I guess he just flew around in circles).

Before the advent of computer-controlled trim systems, fighter pilots had to adjust trim by pumping fuel from tank to tank and mathematically predict where it should be - in flight - using math in your head - compensating for fuel consumption - and the trim in subsonic flight is not the same as transonic or supersonic - and it varies by altitude as well. So Bush must have had someone telling him what to do every minute he was in that plane...

Which occurrence do you think is more likely? That he's stupid and that everywhere he went as a fighter pilot, there was someone to tell him what to do, or that he's actually smarter than his public reputation?

Doesn't sound too hard to me. In fact, I rather suspect that with enough training and willpower, a great many people could do it.

Him being stupid does not prevent training in that area. Nor the ability to memorize. Nor, in fact, a great many things - thats what's great about democracy, no one is limited by something like intelligence as long as you have popularity.

I don't care what his public reputation is - I declared in my own mind by my own reasoning that he was an idiot long before it became "chic" to do so. Him being smarter than his public reputation is certainly possible. But its not likely that he's smarter than I think he is, no.

Liberal(lib·er·al)
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Well, Corneliu used "liberal" as a noun, not an adjective. That is bad English on his part.

Corneliu, who would attack Canada if they weren't getting a "free ride" from the USA?

If Bush is an idiot, then Gore was a complete and utter moron.

We can just go on the basis of their academic performance.

Bush got better grades in college.
He got his MBA at Harvard.
Gore got worse grades.
He flunked out of divinity school.
He flunked out of law school.

Gore's father had far more political clout at the time and was worth several times what Bush's father was (assets and money).

I used to work for one of Gore's close friends in high school (when Gore went to St. Albans). He was convinced, long before Gore ran for office, that Gore was completely stupid and disconnected from real life.

And his friend was a Democrat. Who voted for Bush because he knew Gore was an idiot.


Well, Bush got into Harvard because of his father, not his grades. And yes, Gore was not the smartest guy either, but he wasnt a :mp5: warloving maniac :sniper: either... Anyway, this election was about Kerry and if u ask me (and a lot of other ppl) he was the best choice! (Unfortunately the Mid-West ((straight outta Deliverance)) rednecks has the right to vote too...And they cant read, so they vote on another guy who cant read either..)

The math in flying combat jets in peacetime exercises is constantly used. Some of it you have to do in your head when flying - the F-102 flown by Bush was commonly used in bomber intercept exercises. Since they didn't have the elaborate computers we have now, nor the elaborate ground direction systems we have now, a pilot had to , on his own, figure out the appropriate flight path on their own, in their head.

Wrong. Pilots are given vectors by flight control, precise enought to put them within radar contact or visual contact of the target. They'll follow their radar or eyes from there. This has been so since WW2.

Of course he would still have to know math, calc, and be a very quick witted person to figure out why the airplane flies, what's its envelope and how it compares to its target and, once in combat, where everything is and how the situation is changing.


It's a calculus problem, yes. In your head. Which you constantly recalculate as you are told the changing position of the target (which turns to try to mess up your calculation).

Another calculus problem is catching a baseball, figuring out speeds, gravity, coriolis, wind, etc. and still coming with the ball in your glove.


Before the advent of computer-controlled trim systems, fighter pilots had to adjust trim by pumping fuel from tank to tank and mathematically predict where it should be - in flight - using math in your head - compensating for fuel consumption - and the trim in subsonic flight is not the same as transonic or supersonic - and it varies by altitude as well. So Bush must have had someone telling him what to do every minute he was in that plane...

Wrong. They fly, and have always flown, by the numbers. That is, there are tables with all the necessary configurations depending on speed, altitude, temperature, airplane weight, etc. All the pilot has to do is follow these tables. And, of course, a lot of feeling. Much of it comes from experience, just by flying.

which one? i think both. hmm lets have quote shall we? we rely on foreign oil. more and more of our imports come from abroad. :headbang:

Doesn't sound too hard to me. In fact, I rather suspect that with enough training and willpower, a great many people could do it.

Him being stupid does not prevent training in that area. Nor the ability to memorize. Nor, in fact, a great many things - thats what's great about democracy, no one is limited by something like intelligence as long as you have popularity.

I don't care what his public reputation is - I declared in my own mind by my own reasoning that he was an idiot long before it became "chic" to do so. Him being smarter than his public reputation is certainly possible. But its not likely that he's smarter than I think he is, no.

I don't believe for a second that he's an idiot. The Democratic woman he beat in Texas for the Governor's seat said that he is far, far smarter than anyone gives him credit, and that you would have to be a fool to think he's an idiot. She's convinced that it's an incredible, cunning act.

I'm inclined to believe the same. If you figure that two men (let's say Bush and Kerry) come from the same relative background of privilege, Yale, Skull and Bones frat, some diddling military service, and then a life of power and politics - the difference that I saw during the election is that Bush was able to convincingly (maybe not to everyone, but to a lot of people) appear common and down to earth.

My Democrat neighbors had a comment during the run-up to the election. They saw pics (yes, he went there for the photo-op) of Bush picking up branches in the aftermath of a hurricane. They thought he looked like someone who really on occasion other than a photo-op, would be picking up branches himself - you know, doing real work.

They expressed dismay at Kerry's photos. Sailing, duck hunting - they thought that the people in the L.L. Bean catalog looked more convincingly "real" than Kerry.

Although they voted for Kerry, the disparity in public image was disheartening to them, and they conclude to this moment that more people were convinced to vote for Bush because of this factor.

Ann Richards, the former Democratic governor of Texas beaten by Bush, thinks that why he kicked her out of office. She warned the Democrats of this very factor.

So to me, he's pretty fucking smart.

which one? i think both. hmm lets have quote shall we? we rely on foreign oil. more and more of our imports come from abroad. :headbang:

Yes you do, why do think you americans are in Iraq and planning to take out Iran? To make peace?? HAHAHAHA

Well.. one sided story? Definitely.. He's bad for the country, but the worst nightmare to all of America's enemies.
nightmare? I doubt it. He has given Osama the perfect provocative propaganda pieces to recruit angry Muslims into his terrorist ranks. I can't prove it directly - al-Qaeda don't publish member lists. But anti-American attitudes in the Middle East are way, way up. Every time Bush does something like invading Iraq, the people in that region become ever more anti-American, and thus ever more likely to join anti-American terrorists. Terrorists are not like little robots that can be picked off just like that. Every time a terrorist is killed, two or three more take his place.

I would guess that the Iraq war has strengthened al-Qaeda's manpower and support base significantly, which is one of my main reasons for opposing it.

nightmare? I doubt it. He has given Osama the perfect provocative propaganda pieces to recruit angry Muslims into his terrorist ranks. I can't prove it directly - al-Qaeda don't publish member lists. But anti-American attitudes in the Middle East are way, way up. Every time Bush does something like invading Iraq, the people in that region become ever more anti-American, and thus ever more likely to join anti-American terrorists. Terrorists are not like little robots that can be picked off just like that. Every time a terrorist is killed, two or three more take his place.

I would guess that the Iraq war has strengthened al-Qaeda's manpower and support base significantly, which is one of my main reasons for opposing it.


And just to get this right, its not just the middle east who is displeased. Look at the rest of the world.. Europe, Africa, Asia... the only continent he gets support in is Australia..(And who cares about them anyway?) Even the british goverment is getting displeased with his new "worldpeace"-plans...

I don't believe for a second that he's an idiot. The Democratic woman he beat in Texas for the Governor's seat said that he is far, far smarter than anyone gives him credit, and that you would have to be a fool to think he's an idiot. She's convinced that it's an incredible, cunning act.

I'm inclined to believe the same. If you figure that two men (let's say Bush and Kerry) come from the same relative background of privilege, Yale, Skull and Bones frat, some diddling military service, and then a life of power and politics - the difference that I saw during the election is that Bush was able to convincingly (maybe not to everyone, but to a lot of people) appear common and down to earth.

My Democrat neighbors had a comment during the run-up to the election. They saw pics (yes, he went there for the photo-op) of Bush picking up branches in the aftermath of a hurricane. They thought he looked like someone who really on occasion other than a photo-op, would be picking up branches himself - you know, doing real work.

They expressed dismay at Kerry's photos. Sailing, duck hunting - they thought that the people in the L.L. Bean catalog looked more convincingly "real" than Kerry.

Although they voted for Kerry, the disparity in public image was disheartening to them, and they conclude to this moment that more people were convinced to vote for Bush because of this factor.

Ann Richards, the former Democratic governor of Texas beaten by Bush, thinks that why he kicked her out of office. She warned the Democrats of this very factor.

So to me, he's pretty fucking smart.

Its true he could be just acting dumb. As a cynical [realist] I have no trouble believing that either. However, given the choice between believing two equally cynical realities, I pick the one where people are less intelligent, because my experience has shown that its safer to bet that people are suckers than that they aren't - Presidents included.

Of course what you describe would show the opposite case here - believing him stupid would be a real misunderestimation (for his political opponents anyway). However, the case for his intelligence hinging upon his political decisions can again be attributed to campaign management and connections, not necessarily himself.

From my perspective I have no reason to think him particularly smart. And from my perspective "average" is idiocy too, so there is that.

Yes you do, why do think you americans are in Irq and planning to take out Iran? To make peace?? HAHAHAHA

I remember for the longest time hearing from European friends (who were wringing their hands), who said that the US should do something about the Middle East.

We should solve the Palestinian/Israeli problem.
We should eliminate dictatorships in the Middle East somehow.
We should reduce world terrorism.

The moment we start to do something, they scream, "DON'T!"

Ok. We're making good progress with the Palestinians and Israelis now.
Ok. We've eliminated Saddam as a dictator, and putting others on the list. Yes, we'll admit the whole WMD reason was a false flag just to keep you busy voting against and for things at the UN.
Wow. Kick some ass in Iraq, and Qaddafi puts his tail between his legs. Good news, but the Europeans won't EVER admit it happened.
Afghanistan is looking better than it has in forty years - not perfect, but certainly not like it was under the Taliban.

The same Europeans who will say, "The US didn't show up until it had to, and then much too late in World War II (or World War I, take your pick)" are the VERY SAME ONES, who after saying the US is stupid for not being pro-active, will say:
"The US should never do anything pro-active."

I can see it now, 30 years from now. Some European will say, "well the US took their goddamn time before they straightened out the Middle East".

Yes. I see. After European colonialism turned the Middle East into the clusterfuck of all time, the US will, once again, be expected to fix it.

Since we're going to get criticized whether we do something or not, or whether we do it now or later, or criticized as to how we do it, it no longer matters at all what the Europeans have to say. So for those European critics, if they don't like it, they can spend trillions of euros to grow their own military and go galloping around the world fixing things their way.

That might cost a bit. Lives, for one thing. And secondly, you could kiss all those social benefits goodbye.

Until you're willing to give up some lives, and most of your social benefits, shut up while we do the work.

I'm inclined to believe the same. If you figure that two men (let's say Bush and Kerry) come from the same relative background of privilege, Yale, Skull and Bones frat, some diddling military service, and then a life of power and politics - the difference that I saw during the election is that Bush was able to convincingly (maybe not to everyone, but to a lot of people) appear common and down to earth.

Sure, if by "common and down to earth", you mean "lacking in any depth."

For Bush, everything is black or white - there is no in between - you are either completely with him or completely against him. Unfortunately, the rest of the idiots in the world seem to agree with that viewpoint.

I remember for the longest time hearing from European friends (who were wringing their hands), who said that the US should do something about the Middle East.

We should solve the Palestinian/Israeli problem.
We should eliminate dictatorships in the Middle East somehow.
We should reduce world terrorism.

The moment we start to do something, they scream, "DON'T!"

Ok. We're making good progress with the Palestinians and Israelis now.
Ok. We've eliminated Saddam as a dictator, and putting others on the list. Yes, we'll admit the whole WMD reason was a false flag just to keep you busy voting against and for things at the UN.
Wow. Kick some ass in Iraq, and Qaddafi puts his tail between his legs. Good news, but the Europeans won't EVER admit it happened.
Afghanistan is looking better than it has in forty years - not perfect, but certainly not like it was under the Taliban.

The same Europeans who will say, "The US didn't show up until it had to, and then much too late in World War II (or World War I, take your pick)" are the VERY SAME ONES, who after saying the US is stupid for not being pro-active, will say:
"The US should never do anything pro-active."

I can see it now, 30 years from now. Some European will say, "well the US took their goddamn time before they straightened out the Middle East".

Yes. I see. After European colonialism turned the Middle East into the clusterfuck of all time, the US will, once again, be expected to fix it.

Since we're going to get criticized whether we do something or not, or whether we do it now or later, or criticized as to how we do it, it no longer matters at all what the Europeans have to say. So for those European critics, if they don't like it, they can spend trillions of euros to grow their own military and go galloping around the world fixing things their way.

That might cost a bit. Lives, for one thing. And secondly, you could kiss all those social benefits goodbye.

Until you're willing to give up some lives, and most of your social benefits, shut up while we do the work.


First...what kind of friends do u have? Underground naziparties do not count, second, plz dont come with the whole world war 2 thing..(Dont take it wrong, happy u showed up) And the whole "europeans turned the middleeast upside down" argument u use.. C`mon what have u ppl done for the last 100 years? And its not about u doing things or not, its how u guys do it! And how your president defends his actions afterwards.. yes, its a qliche (i dont thinks thats right spelling;-), but u pll have a way to act thats not very likeable..

Sure, if by "common and down to earth", you mean "lacking in any depth."

For Bush, everything is black or white - there is no in between - you are either completely with him or completely against him. Unfortunately, the rest of the idiots in the world seem to agree with that viewpoint.

That would make Senator Byrd, from West Virginia, an idiot as well.

There is no black and white for him. You're either against the Republicans, and anything that any one of them might vote for, or it's the fucking end of the world.

For Bush, everything is black or white - there is no in between - you are either completely with him or completely against him. Unfortunately, the rest of the idiots in the world seem to agree with that viewpoint.

You just described the majority of Americans, and probably the majority of humanity, not just Bush.

That would make Senator Byrd, from West Virginia, an idiot as well.

There is no black and white for him. You're either against the Republicans, and anything that any one of them might vote for, or it's the fucking end of the world.

If that is the way he sees things, it sure would.

You just described the majority of Americans, and probably the majority of humanity, not just Bush.

So? It isn't my fault that the majority of people lack the ability to actually examine an issue, instead of yelling, "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY!"

If that is the way he sees things, it sure would.
He's a frequent lone speaker on CSPAN. I'm convinced that he's a paranoid schizophrenic.

Then we can assume that John F. Kennedy and John Kerry and Al Gore bought their grades and degrees as well. If we're going to discount their actual academic performance because they "might" have bought the grades or degrees, then we can assume that we'll have to look for some other indication of non-idiocy.

I've noticed that it's rather hard to be an idiot and get to fly a fighter plane. The requirements (even back in Bush's youth) implied an understanding of the mathematics and engineering involved in jet flight - or they wouldn't even let you sit in the seat and fly it by yourself.

I've talked to more than one pilot from that time period (and one who used to run the training simulators from the late 1950s to the early 1980s), and they seem to be unanimous in the idea that Bush would have had to possessed an excellent grasp of advanced mathematics in order to become a fighter pilot - even a part-time one in the National Guard.

So we have records that he flew a jet fighter, solo. He evidently can still fly jets and land them on carriers.

Still an idiot?Idiot Savant? He did not, as you may be implying, recently land an aircraft on an aircraft carrier. He was a passenger on an aircraft that landed on an aircraft carrier. Where he subsequently announced the end of a conflict that somehow didn't end, and is still going on. Ask the soldiers who come under fire every day if that conflict is over.

If, in the arena of Statesmanship (as different from Politics) the man is not an idiot, then I cannot think of enough negative nouns and adjectives to describe him.

Well, he may not be a statesman, but he's really good at getting elected.
Either that, or the Democratic Party likes to hit the showers during the first quarter of every game.

Is Bush an idiot? Short answer: Yes.

Proof that he is an idiot please?

Well, Corneliu used "liberal" as a noun, not an adjective. That is bad English on his part.

Corneliu, who would attack Canada if they weren't getting a "free ride" from the USA?

Why the people that have declared war on Democracy and the western world. Who do you think will respond the fastest? The Answer would be the USA! Why? 1) We're closer! and 2) We have the money.

As for my grammer. Screw it. I'm not an english major so I don't care about bad grammer unless I'm writing out a report.

Well, he may not be a statesman, but he's really good at getting elected.
Either that, or the Democratic Party likes to hit the showers during the first quarter of every game.It's true that he managed to get himself elected to the presidency of this country twice, and as governor of Texas as well.

I put that down to a number of things other than whether or not he's an idiot.

1. His puppetiers are not idiots. They are a lot of things, mostly nasty things, but they are not idiots. They have managed to paint him in a good light to the voting american public. Imagine - somehow they've managed to do that with a man who has trouble with spoken english. Who was once described by Garrison Keller as "The man into whose mouth the english language goes to die."

2. The christian religious fanatics among the voting american public, who believe (again, because the puppetiers are NOT idiots) that Georgie Dubbya will bring them everything they want in the way of destroying the system of government in the United States and supplanting it with a more "christian" government.

3. The "well-to-do" among the voting american public, who even now are enjoying the fruits of having this particular idiot in office, managed by a crew with the basic political philosophy of "I've got mine, screw you." (normally I use a different word in that sentence - replacing the one that starts with an "s" with one that starts with an "f" - but I'm gonna be nice). Take note of where the cuts are in the budget Georgie just sent to Congress, and where the cuts are not. Take note of who really benefits from the GWB tax cuts. Take not of who would benefit from the proposed GWB "individual social security accounts". For anyone who, upon retirement, has an income in retirement that keeps him/her above poverty, these accounts become just a little tax deferred savings account that they can take the money and do anything they want with. For those who truly need a security net for retirement, who will NOT have an income that keeps them above poverty in retirement without social security, these accounts are nothing more than a chance to shoot dice - some will win, some will lose.

4. The died-in-the-wool republicans among the voting american public, who would vote for a republican corpse before they'd vote for any member of any other party. These folks don't see anything that doesn't come with, from, or on an elephant.

5. Add, in this last election, those among the american voting public who've decided that they will be happy to give up any and all rights to be "secure" and "safe", and for whom the "Patriot Act" is not anathema.

And that's enough to swing the pendulum over and elect an idiot. Or, perhaps a moron. H.L. Mencken once said that given enough time the white house would be occupied by a complete moron. Perhaps we've arrived.

If you consider that the number of people who possess stock has grown by leaps and bounds over the past ten years, and tracks well with the increase in Republican voters, he and his minders might very well win the Social Security battle.

Karl Rove is definitely a genius. If you want to say that Cheney and Rove are Bush's minders, that's OK.

Bush is a shady character, he's gotta be theirs no way to explain why he is so stupid some times and smart other times.... Unless there are two W's
running around.

If you consider that the number of people who possess stock has grown by leaps and bounds over the past ten years, and tracks well with the increase in Republican voters, he and his minders might very well win the Social Security battle.

Karl Rove is definitely a genius. If you want to say that Cheney and Rove are Bush's minders, that's OK.Whether they win the battle about the "individual social security accounts" won't really effect me, as I will be retiring in the next couple of years.

But if this is the extent of fixing the Social Security System that we can expect, that is very bad news for those who will be retiring 20, 30, 40 years from now.

This thing will only take about 4% of the SS taxes out of the "pot", as I understand it. Or rather, out of the amount that goes into the "pot".

But the "pot" is rapidly emptying. And it will continue to shrink as long as the revenue stream that feeds it is smaller than the amounts being paid out - and that has to be calculated without any of these smoke-and-mirrors, rabbit-out-of-the-hat "off budget" slick little moves.

A = Revenue stream = all the money going in - taxes, plus any interest/dividends earned by the fund.

B = Payouts = all the money paid out to benefit recipients - as well as ANY money taken out of the fund for ANY other reason.

As long as B > A the Social Security System is headed for the trash heap. And will continue to be headed there until A = B or A> B.

hes a twat whos to concerned with money and oil pricces. I am really scared now cause i dont know whetther america is aiming a nuclear warhead at us

Nope. Though I do not agree with the upper class tax cuts and though it is well known that Bush often does not hold summits with people with dissenting views, he demonstrates a pretty good grasp of economics.

And his foreign policy isn't half bad. The world has not gone to hell in a handbasket...and if Bush WERE an idiot, it already would have, considering he controls the most powerful country on the planet.

Nope. Though I do not agree with the upper class tax cuts and though it is well known that Bush often does not hold summits with people with dissenting views, he demonstrates a pretty good grasp of economics.

And his foreign policy isn't half bad. The world has not gone to hell in a handbasket...and if Bush WERE an idiot, it already would have, considering he controls the most powerful country on the planet.

He has a good grasp of economics in the same sense that a butcher keeps a good grasp of the chicken he's cutting up. To a similar end.

Assuming he is trying to make economics work better he clearly does not understand it. Our debts are skyrocketing and even Walmarts sales are dropping.

If he's trying to drive the middle and working classes into poverty so that he can reduce the expenses of his friends businesses... well he still isn't demonstrating a good understanding of economics because businesses won't function if the people in the richest country in the world can't afford to pay for those services. Like I said, even Walmart is loosing buinsess.

And his foreign policy is terrible. WOULD HAVE gone to hell in a hand basket?!
You aren't telling us that you think that what's been going on in the middle east and Sudan are merely at a simmer are you? North Korea was supposed to quadruple its nuclear stockpile?

hes a twat whos to concerned with money and oil pricces. I am really scared now cause i dont know whetther america is aiming a nuclear warhead at us

And he's got the more thoughtful of us in the States wondering if N. Korea is doing the same with us.

hes a twat whos to concerned with money and oil pricces. I am really scared now cause i dont know whetther america is aiming a nuclear warhead at usWell, Bush probably doesn't know either. He can't even say nuclear.

Well, Bush probably doesn't know either. He can't even say nuclear.
It took me long enough to figure out what he was talking about when he referred to protecting Merkins from ter-rer-wrists. Someone told me a Merkin is a pubic wig, but that doesn't sound right.

It took me long enough to figure out what he was talking about when he referred to protecting Merkins from ter-rer-wrists. Someone told me a Merkin is a pubic wig, but that doesn't sound right.

Protect Americans from Terrorists! That is what he said. God, I understood him perfectly!

hes a twat whos to concerned with money and oil pricces. I am really scared now cause i dont know whetther america is aiming a nuclear warhead at us

I'll give you a hint:

If you are in an Arab country, hold one marshmallow up in the air.
If you are in a Muslim country, hold one marshmallow up in the air (that's a total of two for Arab and Muslim).
If you have sold or are selling technology to any of the first two countries that could be used to make WMD (note that we mean tech and machines - not the WMD) hold another marshmallow up.
As an example, Pakistan should be holding up quite a few marshmallows.
If you're North Korea, just kiss your ass goodbye if anything happens anywhere from now on.

Once you've got those up in the air, just wait for the flash. Enjoy!

Protect Americans from Terrorists! That is what he said. God, I understood him perfectly!
No, he quite clearly says "Merkins". :rolleyes:

Some people...

I'll give you a hint:

If you are in an Arab country, hold one marshmallow up in the air.
If you are in a Muslim country, hold one marshmallow up in the air (that's a total of two for Arab and Muslim).
If you have sold or are selling technology to any of the first two countries that could be used to make WMD (note that we mean tech and machines - not the WMD) hold another marshmallow up.
As an example, Pakistan should be holding up quite a few marshmallows.
If you're North Korea, just kiss your ass goodbye if anything happens anywhere from now on.

Once you've got those up in the air, just wait for the flash. Enjoy!I remember this! We used to call it the cold war! The nuclear deterent (are we allowed to spell/say "nuclear" correctly in the US anymore?) Wow, I really missed it!

[/sarcasm]

It is not a deterrent this time.

If we can invade successfully, we will do so at the end of a short, well-defined set of successive threats.

such as Condi's

"the use of military force is not off the table"

If we cannot invade successfully, we plan to use nuclear weapons. As in the North Korean example. This plan has been made public, and the exercises are conducted at Seymour-Johnson AFB every year.

It's not a deterrent. 911 was the end of deterrence.

No, he quite clearly says "Merkins". :rolleyes:

Some people...

Can you point to the speech please because I always heard him say Americans not "Merkins"

It is not a deterrent this time.

If we can invade successfully, we will do so at the end of a short, well-defined set of successive threats.

such as Condi's

"the use of military force is not off the table"

If we cannot invade successfully, we plan to use nuclear weapons. As in the North Korean example. This plan has been made public, and the exercises are conducted at Seymour-Johnson AFB every year.

It's not a deterrent. 911 was the end of deterrence.Have a nice nuclear winter.

Can you point to the speech please because I always heard him say Americans not "Merkins"
Yup. The best one would be where he started off looking confused and constipated and then said "My fellower Merkins". It's kinda pronounced "Merkanz", but you catch my drift. And if you don't then, well... :cool:

goerge bush is an a#@%!$* if he's so desperate for oil in iraq, strap him with an AK-47 and let him fight his own wars!!!!! :gundge:

Yup. The best one would be where he started off looking confused and constipated and then said "My fellower Merkins". It's kinda pronounced "Merkanz", but you catch my drift. And if you don't then, well... :cool:

Can you point to the speech Please? Can you provide me a link to said speech?

i don't think Bush has the intellectual capacity to fulfil the highly responsible role of President. sure, he's a nice guy (apparently) but i dont want a nice guy running my country - i'd rather have a responsible and intelligent leader.
i dont think he has the intellectual capacity to find his was outa a t-shirt...