comparing Bush Jr. and Adolph Hitler

[Annie]

Hey JimmyC, right on target:

My parents helped establish AA in Illinois back in 1960's. Considering the members of their 'groups' included doctors, corporate lawyers, international lawyers, the owner of one of the largest furriers in Illinois, a partner in major advertising company, the #1 political man from Il., judges, politicians, college professors, well don't think drinking and IQ have much to do with one another. (truth in advertising: parents lived in DuPage County, so the members for the most part did also, with a few from Cook County Gold Coast, thus success in $ sense is nearly a given, but their 'lives' sucked.)

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by jones
He does not make the choices in his company.

He graduated from Yale University - He was C student in highschool and he got into yale through his daddys connections.
Received masters from Harvard - He was the official cheerleader of the team.
He was an F-102 fighter pilot - dont need to be smart to fly a plane.
Owned baseball franchise - He also was the head of an oil company. But that company failed soon after Bush managed it.
Governor of Texas - He bragged about how many people he put to death. Think it was a record number or something. Texas now has most polluted water/air in the country, as of is term as governer.

Excuse me, but getting through any university and master's program will never be easy no matter how good your connections are. And I'm sure there are plenty of "c" students who do a world of good. Secondly, you do need intelligence to be a pilot. Being governor of texas surely qualifies as requiring more stringent intelligence than Arkansas- what the hell did that state ever give to the union beside blow job bill? And lastly, what do you do for a living that you are qualified to judge other's intelligence? Unless you are an IQ test interpreter you have no basis for your expertise.

 

[Annie]

getting through any university and master's program will never be easy no matter how good your connections are. And I'm sure there are plenty of "c" students who do a world of good. Secondly, you do need intelligence to be a pilot. Being governor of texas surely qualifies as requiring more stringent intelligence than Arkansas- what the hell did that state ever give to the union beside blow job bill? And lastly, what do you do for a living that you are qualified to judge other's intelligence?

by Moi

 

[DKSuddeth]

dont need to be smart to fly a plane

I have to know, how do you know this? because I've got 6 years of Air Traffic Control knowledge, which includes at least the basics if IFR flight rules and aerodynamics, and I'm willing to bet that unless you're an actual licensed pilot, I know more about flying than you and I couldn't do it.......yet.

 

[Annie]

So it doesn't take much 'smarts?'

Tell that to my friend with Master's, who has spent over 20k getting to jet competency test.

 

[Jeff]

What a idiot............. enough said!!!!


Jeff

 

[bamthin]

These guys have some pretty good arguments proving Bush's stupidity. In fact, they have issued a challenge to anyone who can prove Bush ISN'T stupid. Pretty funny read. I had no idea that Bush doesn't schedule open, unscripted press conferences. I wonder why?

LINK


-Bam

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by bamthin
These guys have some pretty good arguments proving Bush's stupidity. In fact, they have issued a challenge to anyone who can prove Bush ISN'T stupid. Pretty funny read. I had no idea that Bush doesn't schedule open, unscripted press conferences. I wonder why?

LINK


-Bam

Perhaps because he's nervous? Stage fright? Dyslexia? Just doesn't like not to? What the heck is the problem with scripted press conferences? How many of you go on national radio and telelvision? I doubt George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln or any other president that was born before their advent and proliferation would welcome the need to go that route all the time.

So George Bush is a doer instead of an orator....who gives a flying fig? I'd take someone with the balls to do things and try rather than those who speak so nicely yet do nothing beneficial. Being a leader does not mean you are an entertaining actor...neither does being entertaining make you NOT a good leader. If you ask me those two things are completely unrelated.

I can respect people who just differ in their views than I, but to belittle a man because of these inane reasons is just childish, ignorant and, worse, completely ineffective.

 

[NightTrain]

I took Commerical Aviation at UAA in '91-'92. There is a tremendous amount of theory and math involved in it.

The Commercial part wasn't bad, but the IFR part was a major bitch. I ranked 5th in our class of 43. I worked my ass off to pass those writtens and spent many hours studying. I know from experience that you have to be commited and fairly bright.

This was commerical aviation. Military Aviation goes much further - you're not expected to intercept and dogfight a MiG with a 747.

'Don't need to be smart to fly a plane'? Actually, you do. Anyone that earns their wings has truly accomplished something in my book.

Anyone that earns their wings & flies an Interceptor is well above average intelligence.

 

[Annie]

One thing I will give these guys credit for is their publishing (I'm assuming), a response en toto. They do start off their diatribe with arguments against his style, if not the substance. Nevertheless, they allow a publication of his response en toto, unusal for 'liberals'.

Now this doesn't mean they won't get 'personal': We'll restrain ourselves from ad hominem attacks on your character, Mr. Rabinovitch, but we feel called to point out that you have already insulted yourself. And then there's this, one assumes hoping no one is paying attention to Dean:

You explain the great volumes (yes, public examples of George W. Bush's verbal inadequacies actually do fill several books) of Bush's public gaffes as a manifestation of media bias against him.

This source extorts: Frankly, we're shocked that the Republican Party has condoned Bush's illegal drug use, as if it is no big deal. This is, after all, the same Republican Party that tried to remove a sitting President for the high crime of getting a blow job. We suppose it's the right of Republican Party operatives to argue that alcoholism, drunk driving, and drug abuse are acceptable behavior but that a blow job is an impeachable offense. We, however, will be clear: we believe that using illegal drugs, abusing alcohol and driving while intoxicated are stupid things to do.

Am I the only one to find this nonsensical? If there were indications that Bush was 'imbibing' and unable to handle it, I would be the first to see and acknowledge the comparison to Clinton's sex problems, but considering there are how many years of sobriety and no indications that he is drinking or if he was that he can't handle it...

The same tactic is used in your explanation of George W. Bush's failures in the educational system. You acknowledge that Bush was largely unsuccessful as an undergraduate student, but you attempt to distract from this failure by pointing out that other people have had similar failures. Once again, you are admitting an example of George W. Bush's stupidity, then excusing this stupidity by saying that other people are stupid too. Your heavy reliance on this technique undermines your attempt to prove that George W. Bush is not stupid. You can't admit that Bush has a history of demonstrations of stupidity, a history that continues to this day, and then argue in the same breath that Bush is, in fact, not stupid.

This argument defies the basic rules of logic. If you agree to the premise that George W. Bush has demonstrated stupidity, then you cannot use that premise in an argument to prove that George W. Bush is not stupid. Let's take a look at the form of logical argument that you're attempting to use:

Bush is X. X is a sign of stupidity. However, other people are also X. Therefore Bush is not stupid.
In this form, by admitting that Bush is X and that X is a sign of stupidity, you have actually proven our point, that Bush is stupid. Creating examples of other stupid people does not change this basic fact. In the course of human history, there have been many idiots. This challenge is not intended to address the stupidity of them all. Rather, it is intended, as you well know, to discuss the stupidity of George W. Bush, the one individual on the planet most capable of screwing the world up.

Once you have admitted that George W. Bush is stupid, then you must retreat (as you implicitly do) to the backup position that Bush's stupidity doesn't really matter. This sort of position doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, does it?

We could stop here, since through your use of ill-constructed arguments, you have actually proven our point. However, in the interest of showing respect to the effort you have put into your attempt to prove that George W. Bush is not an idiot, we will attend to your other arguments as well.

Don't really agree with the premise. I think many people in college, returning to college, coming to college years later, are very different from the people they were before. I know that the person I was in high school bore no relationship to the college person I became. That college person bore little resemblance to the returning to school person 12 years later. That person bore more of a resemblance, but not fixed, of the person now going for Master's.