Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Jul 16, 2006.
Still too dumb? When was he ever smart, or even close to normal intelligence?
The monkey is smarter than him!
Yes, I'm sure we've all seen the chimp pictures. But if you read the piece I think you'll find the question being raised is not really about intelligence, per se.
indeed. bush is simply a product of this country's anti-intellectualism. beyond the bush administration, this is a hurdle the country must clear or else it will be the end of the US as we know it.
and fwiw, i don't think we can clear it.
It's Bush's mental capabilities, such as they were, that have faded away. But anyhow.
*Sigh.* What does that say about the typical American voter?
Great. This is the legacy Ronald Reagan left us.
This kind of stuff just literally bugs the **** out of me. We non-Bushies are supposed to apologize for our clear-headedness and our insistence that our president's IQ should be higher than his age?
In other words, if you fail to become an intellectual yourself, then deride them and profess the joys of ignorance.
this sums up high school to me. how naive was i to assume that people would grow out of it?
The problem isn't that he's "dumb". That whole everyman thing is just a put on. He's a spoiled rich boy who never had to understand anything or empathize with anyone or, you know, work hard to do anything. He's oblivious, surrounding himself with very intelligent but greedy, selfish sycophants. Watching the Katrina video or the debates, or pretty much anything where he's talking (did you see the thing where he kept talking about the pig, I mean WTF?), makes that obvious. He doesn't want to know about anything. He has his opinions and his ideas and even if they're wrong, even if he mispronounces everything, it doesn't matter. That's just the way it is to him and no one can tell him any different. It's worse than anti-intellectualism, it's stubbornness, rigidness, and the exact opposite of what people should want in a leader. But people will continue to support him because they want to. Because they actually want to believe he is one of them and is helping them. That he's strong and fights for freedom and God.
Even if it's the exact opposite.
I think it's worth remembering how it was Bush was elected in the first place. The 2000 campaign was all about Bush being seen as more honorable and decent than the guy before him. Now quite apart from whether there's any truth to the comparison, the fact is, his appeal never was about being the brightest bulb on the tree. Bush was marketed to the voters the "anti-Clinton." Whatever people perceived Clinton to be, the Republican candidate would be shown to be the polar opposite. That's one of the big reasons the powers-that-be in the party worked so hard to get Bush nominated. Little did they know he was going to start a war, botch it, and have no plan for getting out of it.
I am not going to say he is a smarty, I am only guessing, but Carter may have been the smartest, Clinton was probably up there, at least when he thought with his big head. I am not a historian on Presidential Intelligence, but while much is needed, collecting and surrounding yourself with the right team, and people/leadership skills, common sense, are strong traits to have LOTS of. Regardless of his SAT abilitiy, I wish he had a better team, I miss Colin Powell, not a BRAIN by SAT measures, but competent, sure, and measured.
W bashing is old, and only makes his base more defensive.
BTW where are all those impeach W threads, gotten lost?
here is some great stuff from a Smart Guy..
"'We're not inflicting pain on these ****ers,' Clinton said, softly at first. 'When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers.' Then, with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony [Lake], as if it was his fault. 'I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks'" . . . [from All Too Human by George Stephanopoulos]
Why do you insist on defending a man who is running the country into the ground? Oh, and I love you're Clinton quote. BUT- is he the President or is Bush? Clinton-bashing is getting old stu. It's lame and tired.
Oh you asked for it:
IMPEACH BUSH NOW.
People on the whole sorely overestimate the population at large...
Please point out my defense.
We are all paying the price of all the policies of previous administrations. There are quotes from before 911 (after sudan factory bombing) that predicted greater terrorist threats from Clinton policy. If bush is too dumb than what is smart enough? I have no illusion that he is an intellectual, but I don't think that it is the most important trait, as I outlined. I want a lot of different people in leadership roles, and none of them start with Kerry.
Perhaps smart enough is being able to pronounce simple words, like nuclear, and having a basic grasp on what you are doing before you start wars, reform programs, etc
BTW: I wouldn't be the first to admit that Kerry was not the best candidate, but he was better than bush. and besides, Gore should be president now anyway.
no longer -- i'm too cynical!
I'll stop bashing him when he stops screwing things up. Did you ever think that maybe some of us don't like him because of what he does (and doesn't do)? Don't we have a right to? Aren't we supposed to speak out against our leadership when they're doing things that hurt the country? And the world? I remember criticizing Clinton even for little things, you better damn well believe I'm going to speak out against Bush. Sure, there's always going to be a few conspiracy nuts and angry ranters (though I'd like to point out that our angriest ranter here is a former Republican), but most of us will bash him with good reason and tell you why we're bashing.
You want to defend him, you're going to have to do a lot better than "Clinton/Kerry/Gore sucks" because we know that. They aren't in charge. As lee said, kinda ironic that you can bash them long after and yet you're mad at us for getting angry at something Bush is doing now.
As I said, I get why people defend him. They want to believe, and they don't like what the other side has to offer. I feel that way too sometimes, we all do. But it's hard to watch him and his administration continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, tearing the country apart with their divisive rhetoric and "my way or the highway" attitude. The Dems aren't great (putting it mildly), but the Bush administration has been a disaster. And yeah, we are kinda wondering why there's still about 30% who don't see that.
If I can't name 1 thing he's done right lately, that's his fault not mine.
Well said, i concur
Thank you. I try. I'm sure someone will still disagree with me though.
Though I find it odd that so-called "liberals" never seem to disagree with me when I bash Clinton or Kerry. Especially when I bash Hillary. Usually everyone agrees. I point out that Bush has done something wrong, one side goes all tin foil hat, the other says that I'm wrong with nothing to back it up. Oh, and that I'm an unAmerican, terrorist lover. Which I'm getting pretty sick of. Everyone else just nods their heads and says "oh well, nothing we can do".
I wouldn't care if he was the smartest guy in the world, he's an utterly incompetent failure as a president.
I think the correlation between his disparaging attitude towards intelligence and his ineptitude as a leader is more than just casual.
I don't understand how someone's ego can be so fragile that they'd resent and vote against a guy who was smarter than they. I for one am greatly comforted when I sense the people above me in any hierarchy to be better equipped to handle things.
Perhaps that's what needs fixed in America first: we need to shed our delicate self-esteems and learn to be comfortable "losing" or at least not always being #1. Some humility wouldn't hurt along the way.
Gaining back our intellectual infrastructure would simply take a brief generation after we overcome the obstacles.
It's not that Bush is dumb, he's not. It's that his judgement and perspective are grossly misguided. He's a third generation poitician whose been so enveloped in Washington's corrruption, that he's oblivious to the world and its complications and solutions.
for years now, p'brit and i have been saying that bush is a sociopath (the PC term for that is antisocial personality disorder). consider:
"three or more". bush has all 7.
Having a degree (BS, Masters, PhD, etc.) does not confer intelligence nor common sense.
Being a leader is takes more than book smarts as my uncle used to say.
Unfortunately, how we perceive our presidents is how they come across on TV and the media.
An example of how the media has changed over time:
First event: During FDRs reign as president, there is only one picture of him going from sitting to standing and that was done by Life magazine. Because of his bout with Polio, the press did not show him clumsily moving from sitting to standing or vice versa.
Second event: Go forward a few years and we see President Ford walking down the stairs of Air Force One. He slips and falls. What does the media do? Do they pan away? Do they broaden the shot? Do they cut to another angle? Do they go to a station break? Nope. Instead the cameramen zoom into President Ford so you can see him stumble step by step until he is a pile at the bottom. Disgusting.
IMHO, these days our perception of the president (such as Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2) is way too controlled by the media's interpretation (positive or negative) of the person currently holding office and what they do.
Honest reporting seems to be a thing of the past. Just ask Dan Rather!
btw, from that same page:
Wow that's really interesting.
I wonder if he ever really kicked the cocaine habit too?????
I suppose I had to know this topic would quickly degenerate into a generic Bush bash/Bush defense thing. But I was hoping somebody would have some insight into why so many people prefer political leaders who are folksy and shallow, even if they don't seem to have much of a grasp, instead of intellectual and complicated, even if they'd be more likely to run the nation's business competently. I think this was the real question being asked by the opinion writer. This goes back to the Eisenhower election at least, when the Republicans successfully branded Stevenson as being too smart for the job.
I meet all kinds of people every day who still think George Jr.
is a good 'ol boy.