[demograph68]

Dan Quayle is a genius.

[MindFad]

Yes.

[spacefreak]

Only morons believe that an idiot can become president.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Only morons believe that an idiot can become president.

Actually being an idiot is a prerequisite for the position.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Only morons believe that an idiot can become president.

Unfortunately those morons also voted for the idiot who became president.

[Spliffdaddy]

*I* didnt vote for Clinton. You must be thinking of those other morons.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*I* didnt vote for Clinton. You must be thinking of those other morons.

Wow, it took only 6 posts for someone to mention Clinton. Tell me, what's your obsession with Clinton?

[badidea]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*I* didnt vote for Clinton. You must be thinking of those other morons.

You consider yourself a moron?? Nice!

[Logic]

Originally posted by badidea:
You consider yourself a moron?? Nice!

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by demograph68:
Dan Quayle is a genius.

Bush is an Intelligent Man.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Bush is an Intelligent Man.

One of the best! This man is the president of the United States, and that's what he comes up with.

[Scientist]

To be fair, there are very intellegent people who are often mistaken as idiots for their inability to communicate well. Stuttering, using words incorrectly and confusing sayings may be signs of an inability to communicate well and not an indication of general intellectual impairment. I've noticed that many intellegent people have some of these issues.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
Bush is an Intelligent Man.

They should have really asked next:

"Mr President, thanks for using the word in a sentence. Can you now spell and define the word?"

I'd love to have seen that.

[CreepingDeth]

Let's see.

Kerry: Yale; low-C average. Not accepted into Harvard Law.
Bush: Yale, Harvard MBA.


Please, he isn't stupid, and even Kerry's low C doesn't make him stupid. Quite this ******** over Bush being stupid. He's not.

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by Scientist:
To be fair, there are very intellegent people who are often mistaken as idiots for their inability to communicate well. Stuttering, using words incorrectly and confusing sayings may be signs of an inability to communicate well and not an indication of general intellectual impairment. I've noticed that many intellegent people have some of these issues.

You need to take another look at the clip. This ain't about stuttering or an inability to communicate per se. The guy simply has NO clue as to what he's saying or even what he WANTS to say. He's faking it. Do you get it world? HE'S FAKING IT! For cryin' out loud, what's it going to take?

[KaBlooey]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Let's see.

Kerry: Yale; low-C average. Not accepted into Harvard Law.
Bush: Yale, Harvard MBA.


Please, he isn't stupid, and even Kerry's low C doesn't make him stupid. Quite this ******** over Bush being stupid. He's not.

Yet another example of someone confusing knowledge (memorization of facts) with intelligence. No, bush isn't stupid, but he IS an imbecile.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by KaBlooey:
You need to take another look at the clip. This ain't about stuttering or an inability to communicate per se. The guy simply has NO clue as to what he's saying or even what he WANTS to say. He's faking it. Do you get it world? HE'S FAKING IT! For cryin' out loud, what's it going to take?

Yes, actually I meant to add that their really is no excuse for his response in that clip. It seems as if he'd never contemplated the question of NA sovereignty before. This doesn't make him stupid. If he had contemplated it and this is all he could come up with...well...then...the man needs a transplant.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Let's see.

Kerry: Yale; low-C average. Not accepted into Harvard Law.
Bush: Yale, Harvard MBA.


Please, he isn't stupid, and even Kerry's low C doesn't make him stupid. Quite this ******** over Bush being stupid. He's not.

No clue what Kerry's SAT's where, but I know Bush's were to low for his application to even be reviewed by Yale. By 200 pts. Yet he somehow got in. Meanwhile anyone else with his SAT score didn't even get their application reviewed. Just trashed.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
No clue what Kerry's SAT's where, but I know Bush's were to low for his application to even be reviewed by Yale. By 200 pts. Yet he somehow got in. Meanwhile anyone else with his SAT score didn't even get their application reviewed. Just trashed.

And Im sure you have no hard facts to support this claim.

Regardless, that happenes all the time. And if it is true of Bush Jr, he wasnt the first, or the last.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by greenamp:
And Im sure you have no hard facts to support this claim.

Regardless, that happenes all the time. And if it is true of Bush Jr, he wasnt the first, or the last.

The reason why the SAT's exist:

Makes it easier for colleges. End of story.

Sad, but true.

By looking at scores, you can create a minimum score (as virtually all do). Simply rule out the ones below, and you minimize what you need to review.

Schools get thousands of applications. By doing this they cut most of it down, making it practical.

There's no way they would take his score, since many state colleges would consider that slightly below the cutoff. Yale can afford to be a bit higher because of it's reputation.

A few schools now even say in your rejection letter you can call with any questions. I had one even tell me how far from the cutoff I was (50 v, 50 m) when I asked (not sure if they really should say that though). After that, it was up to my application to hold it's weight (and let them verify my claims regarding my education, work experience, etc.).

But to say Yale is below that of an average state college is incorrect.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Let's see.

Kerry: Yale; low-C average. Not accepted into Harvard Law.
Bush: Yale, Harvard MBA.


Please, he isn't stupid, and even Kerry's low C doesn't make him stupid. Quite this ******** over Bush being stupid. He's not.

Check your "facts." Kerry graduated from Boston College Law School in 1976, and worked as a prosecutor. He also earned what he's worked for. He didn't squander his early adulthood with alcohol and drugs, and he didn't run businesses into the ground, and his daddy's connections didn't get him to where he is today.

[chris v]

Ask the Grecians how they feel about him.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/pr...george-w-bush/

http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

He certainly acts like an idiot in public.

[voyageur]

Here's an anecdote from his time at Yale:

At the start of one term, the star of the Yale football team spotted him in the back row during the shopping period for courses. "Hey! George Bush is in this class!" Calvin Hill shouted to his teammates. "This is the one for us!"

And Bush's own assessment of his Yale experience:

"[William F. Buckley] wrote a book at Yale; I read one."

What his supporters (!) say about him now:

Richard Perle, foreign policy adviser: "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."

David Frum, former speechwriter: "Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. … Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show."

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Logic:
Wow, it took only 6 posts for someone to mention Clinton. Tell me, what's your obsession with Clinton?

What's with the obsession to defend him?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Scientist:
To be fair, there are very intellegent people who are often mistaken as idiots for their inability to communicate well. Stuttering, using words incorrectly and confusing sayings may be signs of an inability to communicate well and not an indication of general intellectual impairment. I've noticed that many intellegent people have some of these issues.

Happens to me all the time. My problem is that my mind thinks too fast for my mouth and quite often sentences come out rather haphazardly.

[CreepingDeth]

Yes, even the most intelligent people can screw up speaking. Except Stephen Hawking. He can't talk.
Really though, I screw up, misuse words, etc. Happens to everyone. Bush ain't that good of a speaker, but that doesn't make him an idiot.
You libs use someone's screwups to beat their ****ing brains in because you don't like their politics, so it give you an excuse to bash them on a personal level.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The reason why the SAT's exist:

Makes it easier for colleges. End of story.

Sad, but true.

By looking at scores, you can create a minimum score (as virtually all do). Simply rule out the ones below, and you minimize what you need to review.

Schools get thousands of applications. By doing this they cut most of it down, making it practical.

There's no way they would take his score, since many state colleges would consider that slightly below the cutoff. Yale can afford to be a bit higher because of it's reputation.

A few schools now even say in your rejection letter you can call with any questions. I had one even tell me how far from the cutoff I was (50 v, 50 m) when I asked (not sure if they really should say that though). After that, it was up to my application to hold it's weight (and let them verify my claims regarding my education, work experience, etc.).

But to say Yale is below that of an average state college is incorrect.

Thanks for the SAT lecture. I'd still like to see some proof to support your previous claim.

[Ratm]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
What's with the obsession to defend him?

lmao

It's a disease, maybe you can treat him doctor.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
What's with the obsession to defend him?

Could you point me to where in my post I was defending Clinton?

[ebuddy]

Wow, it took only 6 posts for someone to mention Clinton. Tell me, what's your obsession with Clinton?

I think someone mentioned that stupidity was a prerequisite for the Presidency. Clinton is a fomer President.

Why the obsession over Bush? As you know, Yale is a huge think-tank for conservatism. They were really Jonesin' to get a rich conservative in there to change the hearts and minds of those liberals by whom he would be enveloped. Any ol' idiot can successfully manage oil wells, baseball teams, and govern the largest state in our country. Any ol' idiot can go get a little degree at Yale. Evidenced by his miserable career choices after placing his Yale experience on resume'. You're right though, you can be book smart and life-dumb, but he seems to have made a pretty good go of the life part also.

He's either a cunning, war-monguer and sheister who has pulled the wool over the entire world's eyes to justify war against an ambiguous enemy or he's a complete idiot. You can't have it both ways, but I'm sure this will deter no one from propogating the inconsistency.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Let's see.

Kerry: Yale; low-C average. Not accepted into Harvard Law.
Bush: Yale, Harvard MBA.


Please, he isn't stupid, and even Kerry's low C doesn't make him stupid. Quite this ******** over Bush being stupid. He's not.

Don't have much experience with Ivy Leagues, do you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Richard Perle, foreign policy adviser: "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."

I don't know if you realize this, but that is actually a compliment. Being willing to ask questions even at the cost of revealing your ignorance is a strength that few people, especially few powerful people have. Unfortunately, it is far more common for people to try to bluster their way out because of a combination of vanity and insecurity.

[maxelson]

as he does now.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*I* didnt vote for Clinton. You must be thinking of those other morons.

I think he was referring to people who voted for Bush, you know, the guy working with terrorists on new and innovative ways of killing Americans.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't know if you realize this, but that is actually a compliment. Being willing to ask questions even at the cost of revealing your ignorance is a strength that few people, especially few powerful people have. Unfortunately, it is far more common for people to try to bluster their way out because of a combination of vanity and insecurity.

I wouldn't say it's a compliment or particularly reassuring when you're talking about the "leader of the free world".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
I wouldn't say it's a compliment or particularly reassuring when you're talking about the "leader of the free world".

Leader of the free world doesn't mean encyclopedia of the free world. I would rather have someone with the confidence to ask questions than someone who insists they know more than the experts. And no president or for that matter no individual can be an expert on all subjects.

[maxelson]

as this one is... all that science. Feh.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Leader of the free world doesn't mean encyclopedia of the free world. I would rather have someone with the confidence to ask questions than someone who insists they know more than the experts. And no president or for that matter no individual can be an expert on all subjects.

Well, of course it's better to ask questions than pretend you know something. However, the quote says he doesn't know much about anything. Surely, we require a little more of the man who has his hand on the button than that. Bush is rather like "facts are stupid things" Reagan, who went through his entire first term not realizing our subs had nukes.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Leader of the free world doesn't mean encyclopedia of the free world. I would rather have someone with the confidence to ask questions than someone who insists they know more than the experts. And no president or for that matter no individual can be an expert on all subjects.

The problem with Dubya is that he isn't an expert on any subject. If you can look yourself in the mirror, knowing his background, and say that he's worthy of the job he has, and that this is the best America can show off to the world, there's something seriously wrong.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Reagan, who went through his entire first term not realizing our subs had nukes.

Oh, BS. That's just nonsense. The guy was a founding member of the committee on the present danger. His opponants said he was dumb and ignorant, but he wasn't.

But even if it were true, Reagan if anything shows that ideas count for more than specific knowledge. Even his detractors have to admit, he was a very effective president.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh, BS. That's just nonsense. The guy was a founding member of the committee on the present danger. His opponants said he was dumb and ignorant, but he wasn't.

But even if it were true, Reagan if anything shows that ideas count for more than specific knowledge. Even his detractors have to admit, he was a very effective president.

Simey, it's true. One of his advisers clued him in in a meeting during his second term. It may be that his Alzheimer's was already present at that time. I won't debate the effectiveness of Reagan here, but that's certainly subjective.

As to W, you're too smart to delude yourself that he's an intelligent man. Unless people have a different definition of intelligence down in DC. An acquaintance of mine went to prep school with W, and said he was pretty unimpressive even back before alcohol had clouded his mind. And look at him now. Look at his sad performance in the last press conference. Look at his inability to deal with abstract concepts like "sovereignty". Look at his gaffes in the recent interview in Ireland, where he referred to Pakistan as a democratic country in the Mid-East.

[Saad]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
...so it give you an excuse to bash them on a personal level.

A lot like Bill Clinton's affair during one of the best economic periods in America?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Simey, it's true. One of his advisers clued him in in a meeting during his second term. It may be that his Alzheimer's was already present at that time. I won't debate the effectiveness of Reagan here, but that's certainly subjective.

As to W, you're too smart to delude yourself that he's an intelligent man. Unless people have a different definition of intelligence down in DC. An acquaintance of mine went to prep school with W, and said he was pretty unimpressive even back before alcohol had clouded his mind. And look at him now. Look at his sad performance in the last press conference. Look at his inability to deal with abstract concepts like "sovereignty". Look at his gaffes in the recent interview in Ireland, where he referred to Pakistan as a democratic country in the Mid-East.

I think your dislike of both presidents clouds your judgment.

Nobody is saying that Bush is an intellectual giant. Or Reagan either for that matter. But Bush is no dummy. What he is not good at is public speaking, and that certainly is true. That doesn't say much about it intellect in private. And it certainly doesn't say much about his political horse sense. Part of that horse sense is it works to his advantage to be underestimated.

Actually, there is some correlation between very smart presidents and mediocrity in office. Our smartest recent presidents were probably Carter, Nixon, Clinton, Taft, and Coolidge. I wouldn't rate any of them as being good presidents. On the other hand, some of our more successful presidents had lesser academic success. Reagan, Kennedy, FDR, Eisenhower. Of them, Reagan was probably the smartest, and Kennedy the dumbest. But they were all clearly up to the job and much more successful than Carter et al.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think your dislike of both presidents clouds your judgment.

And perhaps your liking of both clouds yours?
I dislike Nixon also, but he was at least intelligent and had the capacity for understanding the complexities of the global situation.

[gerbnl]

Wow, thanks for the www.kontraband.com links! There's a g o a t s e . c x tribute there i hadn't seen before. (not to mention the lego spiderman )

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think your dislike of both presidents clouds your judgment.

That doesn't even make any sense. How else can voyageur reach such a conclusion without judging them on the basis of what they did in the first place?

[chris v]

Originally posted by voyageur:
And perhaps your liking of both clouds yours?
I dislike Nixon also, but he was at least intelligent and had the capacity for understanding the complexities of the global situation.

Nixon was the last true liberal president.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But Bush is no dummy. What he is not good at is public speaking, and that certainly is true.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[zigzag]

I think Bush is intelligent; it's the orientation of that intelligence that concerns me. Reagan wasn't particularly intellectual or detail-oriented, but throughout his life he was actively interested in the issues of the day. I can see Reagan contributing to a forum like this one; Bush, on the other hand, seems not only indifferent, but determinedly anti-intellectual. He's just not interested. That might be fine for managing a business, and it adds to his appeal among the business class, but I'm afraid it might be inadequate to the task of leading the nation, much less the Free World. I want a President who's engaged and in command, who can speak to issues without being spoonfed.

He's the first MBA President. MBAs are fine, we need MBAs, but this isn't an MBA kinda job. The idea that he can just walk in, hear two parties make their case, and make a decision without having any interest in or understanding of the underlying issues is, IMO, wishful thinking. It might've seemed adequate in 2000 when our biggest worry was a slowing economy, but in truth we face much larger challenges that I think call for a genuine interest in world affairs.

I'm not even all that confident in his management abilities. As far as I can tell, he's spent most of his career as a front man, the schmoozer, accustomed to getting by on charm. That's fine in the right context, but I don't think this is it.

This might seem like piling on, which I don't like to do - I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time - but I keep coming to the conclusion that he's the wrong man for the job.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by chris v:
Nixon was the last true liberal president.

I didn't like LBJ, I didn't like Nixon, I didn't like Carter.

Anti-intellectual? Huh? I don't think so.