AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 2

post #41 of 654
3/4/04 at 7:23am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
One of the most intelligent men I know (a teacher of mine) often forgets stories, common sayings, etc. Does that make him stupid? But please...go ahead and believe Bush is stupid.

I guess the following was just because he "doesn't interview well:"
Quote:
Hiller: "Can you name the president of Chechnya?"_
Bush: "No, can you?"_
Hiller: "Can you name the president of Taiwan?"_
Bush: "Yeah, Lee."_
Hiller: "Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?"_
Bush: "Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?"_
Hiller: "No, it's four questions of four leaders in four hot spots."_
Bush: "The new Pakistani general, he's just been elected, not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that's good news for the sub-continent."_
Hiller: "Can you name him?"_
Bush: "General. I can't name the general. General."_
Hiller: "And the prime minister of India?"_
Bush: "The new prime minister of India is - (pause) No."_
Then Bush hit back._
Bush: "Can you name the foreign minister of Mexico?"_
Hiller: "No sir, but I would say to that, I'm not running for President."_

And this is just the beginning.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 654
3/4/04 at 7:31am
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
Not that Kerry is ideal, but God help us if this dolt and his advertising war chest pull out the victory.

Well, there is a 50/50 chance of it happening, so I am semi-preparing for it. Hehe...

The voting population is split something like 40/40 with 20% left in the middle to campaign for. There is really no convincing either 40 to vote the other way and the middle 20% basically stratifies down to 50/50 anyways. So Kerry better respond to the propaganda with good propoganda of his own, and the anti-GWB forces have to stick together until November because the GWB propoganda machine is Orwellian good. The administration has essentially gotten away with every lie they have told.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 654
3/4/04 at 7:45am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Two Tax cuts, the 2002 midterms, NCLBA, Medicare, Iraq. Shall I go on? Whether you support these things or not is not the issue. Bush has basically done what he said he would do and gotten his way when he's wanted it.

Um... how were they such tough victories? GWB has had a favoring Republican Senate and a strongly partisan Republican House for his entire presidency. He can pass anything he wants under those conditions. Even during the 18 months of Democratic rule of the House, the Senate was more or less in his favor with 2 or 3 reliable Democratic turncoats.

The 2002 midterms, I could give you, barely. It was basically 1 blue M&M turning into 1 red M&M. Very important victory yes, but I'm sure they didn't want it that close.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 654
3/4/04 at 8:00am
So if Bush is so stupid....what does that make the democrats WHO LOST TO HIM???? Most of you fail to see that HE IS PRESIDENT, and he very well could be again. He is anything but stupid.
And all that could have been.
Reply
And all that could have been.
Reply
post #45 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally posted by Argento
So if Bush is so stupid....what does that make the democrats WHO LOST TO HIM????

You know, I've been wondering how it is that people like you follow politics, yet know absolutely nothing about how anything works or the people involved.

I truly, honestly am curious how this happens. Does it come from selective reading? Is it because of the tendency to just read healines and the first couple of paragraphs? Really, how does it happen?
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
THAT is what drives me insane about Bush. He is the ANTITHESIS of an average person, and yet, for some reason, people look at him/listen to him and say "Hey! He sounds like a normal guy!"

Do not fall into this trap.

It isn't that he is a 'normal guy' its that he isn't an 'egg-head'
where 'egg-heads' have their heads filled with ungrounded stuff
Bush pretends to have that inarticulate knowledge of a 'farmer'
Farmers who "don't know much but sure know what to do'

The coup is that the right wing put up this phoney and milked his image of a Texas Rancher . . . with a kind of folksy know-how that doesn't work well with words but knows what it 'needs to do' . . . it is a lie
and let me repeat this:

Everytime that you criticize Bush for mispronouncing words and sentences you BOLSTER his image as a 'know-how' person and not a 'know-nothing-egg-head'

these are the idiotic dichotomies that the general populace outside of big cities use to decipher the world (in many cases)

I can not stress this enough: Americans, by and large, distrust 'intellectuals' and downright have no respect for thinking about something rather than doing

SDW has virtually said so himself . . . he likes Bush because he is 'decisive' . . . which is another way of saying that he dioesn't think about what he is doing but he just goes ahead and does it anyway

nevermind that one of the things that he is doing is dismantling the priority of science within science itself . . . in favor of Business but under the guise of piety . .

. . he is a twisted man, but don't call him stupid!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #47 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
He *is* the least-intelligent POTUS in memory, and quite possibly ever.

How you can get to be a candidate even and not know the name of the president of Pakistan is staggering. "No Harald," you say, "That's not stupidity, that's just ignorance!"

No, it's stupidity. It's wilful lack of intellectual curiosity to a degree only possible by not being aware that that's a useful fact to know. And there are plenty of others.

The guy is a doofus. Give it up.

How do you judge intelligence? He couldn't name the President of Pakistan...fine. That's a knowledge issue...not a raw intelligence issue.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #48 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:37am
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I guess the following was just because he "doesn't interview well:"

And this is just the beginning.

I've seen that interview from the year 2000. Bush didn't know the answers, fine. Should he have? Probably. However, that interview was one of the most blatant examples of "gotcha politics" I've ever seen. I wonder how a candidate like Bill Clinton would have fared before his first term under the same circumstances.

Secondly, your quote is not entirely accurate (and actually, it's incomplete as well) Bush used the "foreign minister of Mexico" line, to which the reporter responded as you posted. And true, the reporter made the comment about not running for President. What followed, though, was that Bush used the Mexico example to point out that the reporter's ability to do his job was not reduced because he lacked that point of knowledge. So too, Bush argued, that his being unable to name the leaders of Taiwan, India, Pakistan and the foreign minister of Mexico did not compromise his abilities, especially since he had yet to be elected.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #49 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:42am
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Um... how were they such tough victories? GWB has had a favoring Republican Senate and a strongly partisan Republican House for his entire presidency. He can pass anything he wants under those conditions. Even during the 18 months of Democratic rule of the House, the Senate was more or less in his favor with 2 or 3 reliable Democratic turncoats.

The 2002 midterms, I could give you, barely. It was basically 1 blue M&M turning into 1 red M&M. Very important victory yes, but I'm sure they didn't want it that close.

Most votes were not as close as you claim. There were many Dems who supported him. The medicare bill was the closest...or so I remember. As for the midterms, the Dems didn't just "barely" lose. They, in reality, got slaughtered. The reason is a simple matter of history. By all historically based predictions, the GOP should have lost more seats in both the Senate and the house. By contrast, they gained seats in both and retook the Senate. Bush was directly and personally involved in this effort.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #50 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:45am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
How do you judge intelligence? He couldn't name the President of Pakistan...fine.

Or the PM of India, or the....

So basically the guy can't think on his feet, can't speak coherently and doesn't know the even basics of foreign politics.

Yet you think he's somehow fit to be president. Maybe he would be fit if giving speeches and being central to global politics and, therefore, the long-term global economy were not two of the most fundamental responsibilities of a US President.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You know, I've been wondering how it is that people like you follow politics, yet know absolutely nothing about how anything works or the people involved.

I truly, honestly am curious how this happens. Does it come from selective reading? Is it because of the tendency to just read healines and the first couple of paragraphs? Really, how does it happen?

And I wonder how you manage to insult the intelligence of every single poster who disagrees with you.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #52 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:52am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
So too, Bush argued, that his being unable to name the leaders of Taiwan, India, Pakistan and the foreign minister of Mexico did not compromise his abilities, especially since he had yet to be elected.

I find it absolutely amazing that people think that you need next to no knowledge of anything in order to understand global and foreign politics.

So you would let someone perform dangerous brain surgery on you even if they knew zilch about medicine just 4 years ago? A doctor who's whole selling point is that he's not an intellectual? Sure, the 'doctor' won't know what parts do what or how they interact, but at least he can be decisive. Afterall, what does it matter whether he's right or wrong?
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:52am
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
How you can get to be a candidate even and not know the name of the president of Pakistan is staggering. "No Harald," you say, "That's not stupidity, that's just ignorance!"

No, it's stupidity. It's wilful lack of intellectual curiosity to a degree only possible by not being aware that that's a useful fact to know. And there are plenty of others.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #54 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And I wonder how you manage to insult the intelligence of every single poster who disagrees with you.

I'm asking an honest question.

I am extremely curious why people believe that the president exists in a vacuum, as if the people surrounding him are just there for show.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 654
3/4/04 at 9:59am
well pfflam, as usual you've taken your very own elitist approach to the matter. How ironic.


Quote:
these are the idiotic dichotomies that the general populace outside of big cities use to decipher the world (in many cases)

The notion that only urbanites can see the world in the proper terms is absurd.

Quote:
I can not stress this enough: Americans, by and large, distrust 'intellectuals' and downright have no respect for thinking about something rather than doing

I agree with part one. Many Americans do distrust and dislike intellectuals. As for thinking, I for one would prefer a balance of the two.


Quote:
SDW has virtually said so himself . . . he likes Bush because he is 'decisive' . . . which is another way of saying that he dioesn't think about what he is doing but he just goes ahead and does it anyway

That is one of the reasons I like Bush. Agreed. However, I'm not sure that being decisive equates to "not thinking". Would you also apply this criticism to other "decisive" individuals? Or, is it just Bush? Is being decisive a bad thing?


Quote:
Nevermind that one of the things that he is doing is dismantling the priority of science within science itself . . . in favor of Business but under the guise of piety . .

That's a bit off topic....and quite broad.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #56 of 654
3/4/04 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Or the PM of India, or the....

So basically the guy can't think on his feet, can't speak coherently and doesn't know the even basics of foreign politics.

Yet you think he's somehow fit to be president. Maybe he would be fit if giving speeches and being central to global politics and, therefore, the long-term global economy were not two of the most fundamental responsibilities of a US President.

I think he thinks on his feet pretty well. His speaking has gotten better over time. As for "not knowing the basics", I'm not sure you can make that case based on one interview.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #57 of 654
3/4/04 at 10:04am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I think he thinks on his feet pretty well. His speaking has gotten better over time. As for "not knowing the basics", I'm not sure you can make that case based on one interview.

Rubbish.

An off-the-cuff statement about a "crusade" against terror either shows stupidity (not knowing why that word is not the diplomatically best choice) or stupidity (knowing and not caring the usage would be deleterious to US interests).

C'mon SDW. He's a doofus.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #58 of 654
3/4/04 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I find it absolutely amazing that people think that you need next to no knowledge of anything in order to understand global and foreign politics.

So you would let someone perform dangerous brain surgery on you even if they knew zilch about medicine just 4 years ago? A doctor who's whole selling point is that he's not an intellectual? Sure, the 'doctor' won't know what parts do what or how they interact, but at least he can be decisive. Afterall, what does it matter whether he's right or wrong?

Again, define "next to nothing". I don't think that's clear at all. Bush's selling points are his positions...which people then agree with or disagree with. Of course, his personality is a factor as well. I'm not saying he's ideal in any way. No candidate is. I can easily point out two flaws in, say, John Kerry for every one you point out in Bush. Every candidate has faults and a different style. Do you not think that Kerry's rather indecisive record is a problem? Doesn't the pendulum swing both ways?

Oh, and when did you start believing in "right" and "wrong"? Just an honest question.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #59 of 654
3/4/04 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
As for "not knowing the basics", I'm not sure you can make that case based on one interview.

If someone can't name the heads of pakistan and india, they are absolutely, positively and undeniably unfit to run the world's only superpower. That means he had no clue whatsoever about what was happening in global politics and, most importantly, south asian politics at the time and had not paid any attention for a lengthy period. It's not even the kind of thing that there should be a discussion about.

It's even scarier when you realize, through O'Neill and DiIulio, that the admin didn't even really focus on domestic issues for the first couple of years.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 654
3/4/04 at 11:00am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Or maybe Bush is nowhere near as stupid as the other half thinks? It doesn't matter how many times Bush has beaten his opponents, they still underestimate him. Amazing.


Oh, he's every bit as stupid as we think.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #61 of 654
3/4/04 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And I wonder how you manage to insult the intelligence of every single poster who disagrees with you.

The what?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #62 of 654
3/4/04 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Again, define "next to nothing". I don't think that's clear at all. Bush's selling points are his positions...which people then agree with or disagree with. Of course, his personality is a factor as well. I'm not saying he's ideal in any way. No candidate is. I can easily point out two flaws in, say, John Kerry for every one you point out in Bush. Every candidate has faults and a different style. Do you not think that Kerry's rather indecisive record is a problem? Doesn't the pendulum swing both ways?

Oh, and when did you start believing in "right" and "wrong"? Just an honest question.

Yes, but we have a recent memory of Bush's record ( first hand ). And it ain't pretty.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #63 of 654
3/4/04 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
well pfflam, as usual you've taken your very own elitist approach to the matter. How ironic.




The notion that only urbanites can see the world in the proper terms is absurd.



I agree with part one. Many Americans do distrust and dislike intellectuals. As for thinking, I for one would prefer a balance of the two.




That is one of the reasons I like Bush. Agreed. However, I'm not sure that being decisive equates to "not thinking". Would you also apply this criticism to other "decisive" individuals? Or, is it just Bush? Is being decisive a bad thing?




That's a bit off topic....and quite broad.


So in essence you like Bush because he's stupid?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #64 of 654
3/4/04 at 11:11am
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I've seen that interview from the year 2000. Bush didn't know the answers, fine. Should he have? Probably. However, that interview was one of the most blatant examples of "gotcha politics" I've ever seen. I wonder how a candidate like Bill Clinton would have fared before his first term under the same circumstances.

Secondly, your quote is not entirely accurate (and actually, it's incomplete as well) Bush used the "foreign minister of Mexico" line, to which the reporter responded as you posted. And true, the reporter made the comment about not running for President. What followed, though, was that Bush used the Mexico example to point out that the reporter's ability to do his job was not reduced because he lacked that point of knowledge. So too, Bush argued, that his being unable to name the leaders of Taiwan, India, Pakistan and the foreign minister of Mexico did not compromise his abilities, especially since he had yet to be elected.


Should Bush have known the answers? Definitely! Not probably. It's concerning his job.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #65 of 654
3/4/04 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Two Tax cuts, the 2002 midterms, NCLBA, Medicare, Iraq. Shall I go on? Whether you support these things or not is not the issue. Bush has basically done what he said he would do and gotten his way when he's wanted it.

I just love it when Republicans get all frothy at the mouth over their successes...
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #66 of 654
3/4/04 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Most votes were not as close as you claim. There were many Dems who supported him. The medicare bill was the closest...or so I remember.

I claimed that it was easy for Bush to pass almost anything he wanted to pass, not that the votes were close, and asked why were those victories tough given Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Quote:
As for the midterms, the Dems didn't just "barely" lose. They, in reality, got slaughtered. The reason is a simple matter of history. By all historically based predictions, the GOP should have lost more seats in both the Senate and the house.

Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 654
3/4/04 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
As for the midterms, the Dems didn't just "barely" lose. They, in reality, got slaughtered.

Why not just paint "BUSH" across your chest, get some pom-poms and a little skirt?
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 654
3/4/04 at 2:56pm
A man who doesn't know the name of the President of Pakistan has no business heading any company of any size, let alone the most powerful nation on the planet.

Well, I concede that that's probably impossible to prove.

But look. Bush was elected within months of President Musharraf taking power. Musharraf was in the news for weeks. George Bush wasn't up on the news enough to even know the name of the General who had just ousted an elected president in one of the planet's flashpoints.

In point of fact, Bush wasn't even certain if the bloke had been elected or not.
Quote:
"He's just been elected, not elected."

George Bush both:

a) ran for President
b) did not read the news.

I think that this is... bad.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 654
3/4/04 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Or maybe Bush is nowhere near as stupid as the other half thinks? It doesn't matter how many times Bush has beaten his opponents, they still underestimate him. Amazing.

NO THEY DON'T!!!!

They misunderestimate him. Which would mean simply..estimating him?



Enough said.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #70 of 654
3/4/04 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

a) ran for President
b) did not read the news.

I think that this is... bad.

Doesn't read the news, that's from the horse's mouth too, he either "skims headlines" or has his advisors give him the "gist of it"

orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #71 of 654
3/4/04 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
There you go again. Bush does not interview well and doesn't always speak well. That doesn't make him stupid.

There you go again. Stupidity is relative. To me Bush is dumb. You might see things differently.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 654
3/4/04 at 5:42pm
Quote:
There you go again. Stupidity is relative. To me Bush is dumb. You might see things differently.

ah yes, very mature tonton. glad to see those 2000+ posts were a growing experience for you.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 654
3/4/04 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
NO THEY DON'T!!!!

They misunderestimate him. Which would mean simply..estimating him?



Enough said.

Actually, that would mean that his opponents underestimate him in the wrong ways, which I think is correct.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #74 of 654
3/4/04 at 5:47pm
Have you ever changed your mind on an issue? Have you ever done the research, established your postition, then later more information was made available to you, and you changed your mind? SDW calls that indecisiveness. I call it intelligence.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 654
3/4/04 at 5:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
ah yes, very mature tonton. glad to see those 2000+ posts were a growing experience for you.

I'm sorry for that off-the-cuff personal attack. I just couldn't help myself. But I'm simply flabbergasted at people using the ability to win an election or to pass questionable policies with a Senate full of supporters as evidence of "intelligence". Pete Rose won a lot of baseball games.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 654
3/4/04 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Have you ever changed your mind on an issue? Have you ever done the research, established your postition, then later more information was made available to you, and you changed your mind? SDW calls that indecisiveness. I call it intelligence.

It takes a lot to change your stance on something, even more so to admit if you were wrong. anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #77 of 654
3/4/04 at 6:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Why not just paint "BUSH" across your chest, get some pom-poms and a little skirt?

Why don't you **** off.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #78 of 654
3/4/04 at 6:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
It takes a lot to change your stance on something, even more so to admit if you were wrong. anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves

And Bush doesn't have that strength. Kerry does.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 654
3/4/04 at 6:37pm
Harald:

Quote:
ubbish.

An off-the-cuff statement about a "crusade" against terror either shows stupidity (not knowing why that word is not the diplomatically best choice) or stupidity (knowing and not caring the usage would be deleterious to US interests).

C'mon SDW. He's a doofus.

So a poor choice of words=stupid? Come on. You weren't saying that when Howard Dean went ape-shit 3 weeks ago.
giant:

Quote:
If someone can't name the heads of pakistan and india, they are absolutely, positively and undeniably unfit to run the world's only superpower. That means he had no clue whatsoever about what was happening in global politics and, most importantly, south asian politics at the time and had not paid any attention for a lengthy period. It's not even the kind of thing that there should be a discussion about.

It's even scarier when you realize, through O'Neill and DiIulio, that the admin didn't even really focus on domestic issues for the first couple of years.

I suppose that's one opinion. Again though...I wonder how someone like Clinton would have fared under the exact same circumstances...a surprise attack with an obviously hostile interviewer. Why was Gore not grilled like that? Hmmm....

jimmac:

Quote:
Yes, but we have a recent memory of Bush's record ( first hand ). And it ain't pretty.

What record is that jimmac? Bringing the economy out of recession? Going after Al-Queda on it's own turf? Toppling a mass murderer who defied 17 UN resolutions and used chemical weapons on his own people? Drastically increasing education funding? Adding a prescription drug benefit to medicare? Cutting taxes? Hmmmm.....

THT:

Quote:
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.

Ummm...yes it is. If not, then why study history at all?

tonton:

Quote:
Have you ever changed your mind on an issue? Have you ever done the research, established your postition, then later more information was made available to you, and you changed your mind? SDW calls that indecisiveness. I call it intelligence.

Bush has never changed his mind? You've never been sure of your "big" decisions?


Quote:
I'm sorry for that off-the-cuff personal attack. I just couldn't help myself. But I'm simply flabbergasted at people using the ability to win an election or to pass questionable policies with a Senate full of supporters as evidence of "intelligence". Pete Rose won a lot of baseball games.

The man can't be stupid to have won the victories he has. In the least, he's smart enough to surround himself with people of high intelligence and skill. You simply don't get where Bush has by being dumb...no matter who Daddy was and is. Daddy might get you into Yale and Harvard business school....he doesn't get you out.

Wrong Robot:

Quote:
It takes a lot to change your stance on something, even more so to admit if you were wrong. anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves

I'm not disagreeing with that general notion. Though, you're apparently convinced Bush IS wrong on many issues...whereas I am not.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #80 of 654
3/4/04 at 6:39pm
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And Bush doesn't have that strength. Kerry does.

Or maybe Kerry is just a waffling liberal? Hmmm.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.