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.
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.
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.
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?
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 . .
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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?
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And I wonder how you manage to insult the intelligence of every single poster who disagrees with you.
The what?