Bush at his Dumbest

[Mr.Conley]

No, I do not think he has a speech impediment at all. I think he is inarticulate and sounds, well dumb, and it is because he isn't that bright. Hearing him speak on the giggle box, as well as reading interviews, is hardly unsubstantiated and hardly an assumption.

So, President Bush is a bad speaker, therefore he is dumb?

How? Are you trying to tell me that a course at Yale is better than others in the country? By what standard? Some of those Ivy Leagues are losing their gloss a bit. A degree is a degree no matter where it is from. I'd hire a person who got straight A's at a college like UCLA or similar non-Ivy League colleges, over a C student at Yale or Princeton...

Well, yea, duh, Yale sucks. Everyone knows that.
UCLA is one of the top institutions of learning in this country and indeed the world, an A student at UCLA is as good as, if not better, than a C student at most Ivy League colleges.
What you have to realize is that something like 70% of Americans haven't graduated from college, not to mention a top institution like UCLA. The mere act of graduating from a high caliber school is a distinction of, if not extreme, at least well above average intellegence.

 

[Dr Grump]

So, President Bush is a bad speaker, therefore he is dumb?

No, he is not too bright because of his thought processes and his seemingly lack of comprehension and just general knowledge of the world around him.

Well, yea, duh, Yale sucks. Everyone knows that.
UCLA is one of the top institutions of learning in this country and indeed the world, an A student at UCLA is as good as, if not better, than a C student at most Ivy League colleges.
What you have to realize is that something like 70% of Americans haven't graduated from college, not to mention a top institution like UCLA. The mere act of graduating from a high caliber school is a distinction of, if not extreme, at least well above average intellegence.

Fair enough.

 

[red states rule]

No, he is not too bright because of his thought processes and his seemingly lack of comprehension and just general knowledge of the world around him.



Fair enough.

To libs, Clinton was great because he gave great speeches. To bad he never accomplished anything

They hate Pres Bush because he does not give great speeches, and he is fixing the problems Clinton left behind

To libs good intentions are more important then actual results

 

[vicarious]

Links Edited

 

[dilloduck]

Links Edited

Speaking of dumb, I would think you libs would get tired of having one plan for America. Calling Bush dumb .
Get a candidate--get a real plan--make the election matter--make it interesting.

 

[theHawk]

Maybe they wish they had Clinton in office, he didn't do enough good while in office. Here is his results of his shinning terror policy-



Terror attacks killed six Americans in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

19 killed in an attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where U.S. military personnel were housed, after Clinton refused to erect concrete barriers at the request of the base commander.

11 Americans and more than 200 other people killed in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in east Africa in 1998.

17 U.S. sailors killed and wounded 39 more in the bombing of the Cole as it was anchored in Yemen in 2000.

And Clinton ignored a 1994 Pentagon report that warned of that hijackers could use an airliner as a missile against the Pentagon. The report also predicted the World Trade Center would be a terrorist target.

After all of these attacks Clinton did nothing to retailiate, which emboldened terrorists like UBL.
But hey the past is the past, lets focus on how stupid our current pres is so we can get another Clinton into office.

 

[T-Bor]

Wasnt George the one who threw a copy of the constitution across a board table and told everyone its just a damn piece of paper ? Some respect. Many of his moves can be vehemently argued are unconstitutional my ignorant friend.

Bush is not an eloquent man, but he's not dumb, or at least not any dumber than Gore or Kerry, who IIRC both got worse grades in school. I'd much rather have a dimwit president who respects the constitution instead of a president who's intelligence leads him to think he can micromanage every citizen's problems. Not that Bush or any other president in the last 80 years fits that description, mind you.

 

[red states rule]

Wasnt George the one who threw a copy of the constitution across a board table and told everyone its just a damn piece of paper ? Some respect. Many of his moves can be vehemently argued are unconstitutional my ignorant friend.

Pres Bush is protecting this country from those who want to kill us

Terorists do not take a poll to se if you are a conservative or liberal before they kill you

Clinton used the US Constitution for toilet paper

 

[T-Bor]

Can you provide examples of how Clinton did this ? Cause you know I can pull out the stuff George has done which is widely considered unconstitutional. I wont even go into the Patriot Act and the Recent wiretappings.

Pres Bush is protecting this country from those who want to kill us

Terorists do not take a poll to se if you are a conservative or liberal before they kill you

Clinton used the US Constitution for toilet paper

 

[Avatar4321]

Can you provide examples of how Clinton did this ? Cause you know I can pull out the stuff George has done which is widely considered unconstitutional. I wont even go into the Patriot Act and the Recent wiretappings.

Of course you wont, because those are both very constitutional.

The problem with the left is they want to pretend the President is doing something unconstitutional when its not or when there is major controversy what the Constitution says on a certain point. Particularly when exercising His executive power. Most of the major decisions hold no one majority. they are not clear.

 

[Gunny]

Of course you wont, because those are both very constitutional.

The problem with the left is they want to pretend the President is doing something unconstitutional when its not or when there is major controversy what the Constitution says on a certain point. Particularly when exercising His executive power. Most of the major decisions hold no one majority. they are not clear.

If the President does something unconstitutional, then he can be impeached, or his decision overruled by SCOTUS. Neither of which has happened.

 

[Annie]

Moved to US Chat, since some of the discussion leaves the 'humor' where this should have gone originally.

 

[T-Bor]

You know thats a BS Comparison. Those attacks are nothing to the extent of what happend to the world trade center. There were reports ignored by the Bush administration as well and you know it. You act as if terrorists never killed americans when a republican was in office. Your argument is WEAK. Like Clinton would have just sat there for 6 minutes with some dumb ass look on his face while we were being atacked. Clinton wouldnt have put our soldiers where they dont belong which is in IRAQ. He would have stuck them in Afghanistan. And we would be in a much better spot than the war we are LOSING in Iraq.

Maybe they wish they had Clinton in office, he didn't do enough good while in office. Here is his results of his shinning terror policy-



Terror attacks killed six Americans in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

19 killed in an attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where U.S. military personnel were housed, after Clinton refused to erect concrete barriers at the request of the base commander.

11 Americans and more than 200 other people killed in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in east Africa in 1998.

17 U.S. sailors killed and wounded 39 more in the bombing of the Cole as it was anchored in Yemen in 2000.

And Clinton ignored a 1994 Pentagon report that warned of that hijackers could use an airliner as a missile against the Pentagon. The report also predicted the World Trade Center would be a terrorist target.

After all of these attacks Clinton did nothing to retailiate, which emboldened terrorists like UBL.
But hey the past is the past, lets focus on how stupid our current pres is so we can get another Clinton into office.

 

[Avatar4321]

You know thats a BS Comparison. Those attacks are nothing to the extent of what happend to the world trade center. There were reports ignored by the Bush administration as well and you know it. You act as if terrorists never killed americans when a republican was in office. Your argument is WEAK. Like Clinton would have just sat there for 6 minutes with some dumb ass look on his face while we were being atacked. Clinton wouldnt have put our soldiers where they dont belong which is in IRAQ. He would have stuck them in Afghanistan. And we would be in a much better spot than the war we are LOSING in Iraq.

John Kerry sat around for nearly an hour and a half I remember correctly, yet you guys wanted to elect him.

Also, we wouldnt have had to deal with 911 if President Clinton had actually fought the terrorists when they attacked us originally and Al Gore hadnt delayed the transition to a new administration by trying to steal the election.

Finally, Clinton did put our soldiers in places we didnt need to belong. Places such as Bosnia, where they still are. Meanwhile you object to a legitimate threat such as Iraq. Why is it when we have no purpose under a Democrat President its perfectly alright to invade, but if we have a legitimate purpose with a Republican President its not?

 

[liberalogic]

While I admire you for sticking to your opinion, I suggest you look at President Bush's record before making intelligence judgments.

Regardless of whether the policies 'were all his ideas,' he still managed to assemble a good team and select at least understandable policies.

I'm glad to know that you think President Bush is Karl Rove's mouthpiece, but just because you hold an opinion doesn't make it true.

Yet, that doesn't make it false. We really have no idea what goes on behind the scences, we can only speculate. Based on what I've seen, I can only feel that Bush is tutored before each press conference. When he speaks, he is not dumbing down policy for the American people-- he's dumbing it down for himself.

It would be nice. That highlights the difference between American Democracy and Parliamentary democracy. In America, the executive and legislative branches are seperated. The legislature is responsible for making law and setting most policies, the President is in charge of enforcement. Under our system, technically the President doesn't have a say in how Congress goes about its business, but because the parties are responsible for setting the legislative agenda, and the President is the head of one of the two major parties, he holds significant influence. However, since the Constitution doesn't 'officially' recognize the impact the president has on the legislative process, he is not allowed to formally participate except for in the state of the union.
In Britain, however, the executive is made up of members of the legislative, Tony Blair is a member of Parliament. The executive is subject to the legislative. Once you factor in that Great Britain has no Constitution or Basic Law which it must follow, the British system allows for a surprising amount of flexibility (though precedence and tradition are then allowed to play a disproportionate role thus establishing set proceedings) that eventually resulted in the government we see there today.

Personally, I prefer our own system, I would rather have seperate, independent legislative and executive branches. I think it is better that our executive can focus on enforcing the law and relys on like-minded legislators to defend his positions. That allows the executive to focus on managing the day-to-day operations of the government.

He has a lot of influence in the policies that Congress passes/attempts to pass. But he is also responsible for the condition of Iraq and any other crisis that our nation may face (ie- the hurricanes). I believe in accountability and I'd like to hear from his mouth what he's doing, why he's doing it, and the affect that it has. In his press conferences, he can generally pick and choose people with questions. In Parliament, it's no holds-barred. I simply think that the person running our country (not just Bush, but all Presidents), should be subject to detailed questions, not softballs from cronies.

 

[dilloduck]

Yet, that doesn't make it false. We really have no idea what goes on behind the scences, we can only speculate. Based on what I've seen, I can only feel that Bush is tutored before each press conference. When he speaks, he is not dumbing down policy for the American people-- he's dumbing it down for himself.



He has a lot of influence in the policies that Congress passes/attempts to pass. But he is also responsible for the condition of Iraq and any other crisis that our nation may face (ie- the hurricanes). I believe in accountability and I'd like to hear from his mouth what he's doing, why he's doing it, and the affect that it has. In his press conferences, he can generally pick and choose people with questions. In Parliament, it's no holds-barred. I simply think that the person running our country (not just Bush, but all Presidents), should be subject to detailed questions, not softballs from cronies.

Write him a letter. I'm sure he'd be glad to share all America's secret short and long term economic and military strategies with you.

 

[red states rule]

Yet, that doesn't make it false. We really have no idea what goes on behind the scences, we can only speculate. Based on what I've seen, I can only feel that Bush is tutored before each press conference. When he speaks, he is not dumbing down policy for the American people-- he's dumbing it down for himself.



He has a lot of influence in the policies that Congress passes/attempts to pass. But he is also responsible for the condition of Iraq and any other crisis that our nation may face (ie- the hurricanes). I believe in accountability and I'd like to hear from his mouth what he's doing, why he's doing it, and the affect that it has. In his press conferences, he can generally pick and choose people with questions. In Parliament, it's no holds-barred. I simply think that the person running our country (not just Bush, but all Presidents), should be subject to detailed questions, not softballs from cronies.

Libs of today will continue to defend Clinton no matter how badly the facts destroy their spin

Libs today believe that we had enough evidence to prevent 9/11, but that we did not have sufficient justification to depose Saddam Hussein.

They also believe that the first World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 US embassy bombings, and the USS Cole bombing were not enough reason for Clinton to crack down on Al Qaeda, but that Bush somehow ”ignored” the Al Qaeda threat during the first 8 peaceful months of 2001.

 

[T-Bor]

Sine when was IRAQ a threat to the US ? Beause 11 hijackers caught us with our pants down it was all because of IRAQ ? Give me a break.

John Kerry sat around for nearly an hour and a half I remember correctly, yet you guys wanted to elect him.

Also, we wouldnt have had to deal with 911 if President Clinton had actually fought the terrorists when they attacked us originally and Al Gore hadnt delayed the transition to a new administration by trying to steal the election.

Finally, Clinton did put our soldiers in places we didnt need to belong. Places such as Bosnia, where they still are. Meanwhile you object to a legitimate threat such as Iraq. Why is it when we have no purpose under a Democrat President its perfectly alright to invade, but if we have a legitimate purpose with a Republican President its not?

 

[Mr.Conley]

No, he is not too bright because of his thought processes and his seemingly lack of comprehension and just general knowledge of the world around him.

Do you have a credible link detailing the problems in President Bush's thought processes?

Yet, that doesn't make it false. We really have no idea what goes on behind the scences, we can only speculate. Based on what I've seen, I can only feel that Bush is tutored before each press conference. When he speaks, he is not dumbing down policy for the American people-- he's dumbing it down for himself.

Logical fallacy. Just because we can not prove undoubtably that President Bush is intelligent does not nessicitate that he not. Your whole argument is based on this fallicious assumption and, with the assumption invalid, your whole argument fails.

He has a lot of influence in the policies that Congress passes/attempts to pass. But he is also responsible for the condition of Iraq and any other crisis that our nation may face (ie- the hurricanes). I believe in accountability and I'd like to hear from his mouth what he's doing, why he's doing it, and the affect that it has. In his press conferences, he can generally pick and choose people with questions. In Parliament, it's no holds-barred. I simply think that the person running our country (not just Bush, but all Presidents), should be subject to detailed questions, not softballs from cronies.

I like the idea too. I'm all for holding our elected officials accountable, no matter the party. If the British methiod could work here, I'd be all for it.

He is how I see it. President Bush is admittedly a terrible speaker, but, as anyone who has heard Bill Gates at a conference will tell you, speaking ability is a very poor indicator of intelligence or ability. Everything you've said so far comes with the prefixes like, "from how he speaks," or, "based on what I've seen of him," and the like. Your observations of President Bush's speaking ability are, at best, very poor support for the notion that President Bush is dumb. Ultimately, without a battery of IQ and personality tests it will be impossible to determine President Bush's level of intelligence. The best indicators we have, however, are his excellent educational background and his personal habits such as reading. These indicators all speak to a high level of intelligence

Write him a letter. I'm sure he'd be glad to share all America's secret short and long term economic and military strategies with you.

Come on dilloduck. You're making a huge jump there and you know it. MAybe detailed military operations should be discussed in closed sessions, but economic, educational, enviornmental, foriegn, and domestic policy would all benefit from constructive debate.

 

[dilloduck]

Do you have a credible link detailing the problems in President Bush's thought processes?

Logical fallacy. Just because we can not prove undoubtably that President Bush is intelligent does not nessicitate that he not. Your whole argument is based on this fallicious assumption and, with the assumption invalid, your whole argument fails.

I like the idea too. I'm all for holding our elected officials accountable, no matter the party. If the British methiod could work here, I'd be all for it.

He is how I see it. President Bush is admittedly a terrible speaker, but, as anyone who has heard Bill Gates at a conference will tell you, speaking ability is a very poor indicator of intelligence or ability. Everything you've said so far comes with the prefixes like, "from how he speaks," or, "based on what I've seen of him," and the like. Your observations of President Bush's speaking ability are, at best, very poor support for the notion that President Bush is dumb. Ultimately, without a battery of IQ and personality tests it will be impossible to determine President Bush's level of intelligence. The best indicators we have, however, are his excellent educational background and his personal habits such as reading. These indicators all speak to a high level of intelligence


Come on dilloduck. You're making a huge jump there and you know it. MAybe detailed military operations should be discussed in closed sessions, but economic, educational, enviornmental, foriegn, and domestic policy would all benefit from constructive debate.

Sacarsm dude---constructive debate ? Show me a Democrat or liberal who wouldn't turn anything into a Bush bashing fest after the first question was posed.