George W. Bush is smarter than you

[there4eyeM]

It matters not at all what others say.

I watched his actions.

I listened to him speak.

I understood his motivations, goals and objectives.

I don't need anyone else's opinion. Is he 'smarter' than I? No. Did he get a higher IQ score than I? I neither know nor care.

Do I want to be president? No.

Would I have made a better president than he? Yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"He is lucky to be governor of Texas, He is unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things."

Christopher Hitchens on George Bush

In other words, nothing but blather from a partisan hack who never met the truth, good to know.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's about calculated risk exposure. You're dumber than George of the Jungle.

BofA/CountryWide was "calculated risk exposure"? I hope you don't control your own investments.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Attempting to make something out of nothing? You must have graduated from the Glenn Beck School of Economics.

 

[OnePercenter]

It matters not at all what others say.

I watched his actions.

I listened to him speak.

I understood his motivations, goals and objectives.

I don't need anyone else's opinion. Is he 'smarter' than I? No. Did he get a higher IQ score than I? I neither know nor care.

Do I want to be president? No.

Would I have made a better president than he? Yes.

Really? How could you have better used your position to allow corporations and Wall Street to trash middle America?

 

[Mr. H.]

BofA/CountryWide was "calculated risk exposure"? I hope you don't control your own investments.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Attempting to make something out of nothing? You must have graduated from the Glenn Beck School of Economics.

I've spent my entire career making something out of nothing. Quite successfully I might add.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

George W. Bush is smarter than you

Not likely.

Unlike GWB, millions of Americans knew invading Iraq was a stupid idea.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

George W. Bush is smarter than you

Not likely.

Unlike GWB, millions of Americans knew invading Iraq was a stupid idea.

Even more know Obamacare was the dumbest thing the government has ever done, yet you think that was smart. Does that make you dumber than dog shit, or does it just prove that intelligence is not crowd sourced?

 

[Esmeralda]

Did you two even read the article? It had nothing to do the intelligence of the gentlemen in question. It was about class, it was about how these men carry themselves.

Never mind. Your blind hatred has made you ignorant.

Here, the truth in this one is also bound to piss you off...

The Presidential Wheel Turns - WSJ.com

Your blind hatred of anything and anyone having to go with the left has made YOU ignorant. Your blind defense of Bush and anything Republican makes YOU ignorant. GW Bush is a figure of world wide ridicule and is despised by everyone except partisan Republicans. He is a humiliating embarrassment for Americans. He’s an embarrassment to the GOP who did not even have him in the past two elections help campaign for their presidential candidates.

Bush was a humiliating embarrassment for Americans. As far as carrying himself with more class than other presidents, and the ones you compare him to are all Democrats, that is just ludicrous. Bush is a pig. He has zero class. He is married to a murderer. His daughters were drunken sluts. He is a former druggie and alcoholic. How in the world do you classify him as having class and carrying himself well? He's a joke and a hypocrite. He ruined the country, ruined the economy, killed thousands upon thousands of people by starting two wars, and destroyed respect for America on a world wide scale. People in other parts of the world, and not just the Middle East, call him a war criminal. Trying to resurrect him now is pathetic.

Okay, pay attention twatwaffle, I'm going to type very slowly so that even you will be able to understand... Here we go...

Nothing I typed was in any way, shape, or form close to a diatribe. Over react much? Need a dictionary often?

I do not hate anyone or anything. Project much?

I have voted for and supported candidates of all political stripes, left, right, middle, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent. I am not guided by party ideology. Instead, I vote my conscience. I vote for who or what I believe best represents me and my values. Bush did not. Obama does not. Both have my respect, however. Why? Because they are and were my Presidents.

Neither of the links I posted are meant to be a defense of President Bush, rather they are a study in contrast. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever defended Bush except to call for equal treatment of Obama when he has misstepped. And, considering that except for his father, the only other living presidents are Democrats, to whom would you suggest a comparison be made?

Look, if you can't handle what is contained in the pieces I linked, that's your problem, not mine. But I was right, it does make you angry, stirs that hatred right up, doesn't it?

As for your comments concerning the family and their foibles and tribulations, you strike me as petty, small, and bitter. I can only hope that you and yours have never slipped, broken a law, made a mistake. GOD only knows what you'd say to them.

Oh, and there's no need to repond. You've proven yourself to be nothing more that a myopic, hate filled, partisan hack. I'm through with you.

First, I have more class than you because I don't need to stoop to calling people names when I want to make a point.

What made me angry was not anything about Bush, but being told by you that my opinion was based on nothing but blind hatred. Making assumptions like that indicates your lack of critical thinking skills. I used the phrase 'blind hatred' as a rhetorical technique, repeating your phrase twice in my response to you in order to make a point. Apparently, that point went over your head.

I never used the term 'diatribe,' so apparently it is your reading skills that are in question.

Both of the links you posted describe Bush in far more complimentary terms than he deserves, which makes them a defense of him. Therefore, you do indeed show bias.

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but breaking the law, killing people, being a drunk or hard drug abuser, having children who get caught for DUI and have achieved nothing of distinction....none of those things have anything to do with me, not by a long shot, and they shouldn't have to do with anyone who one claims is a superior being and a leader of the people: those are things low class people do.

In response to the OP: apparently I am smarter than GW as my SAT scores* were higher than his, and that was back in the same era as he took his. I would never have assumed I could lead the most powerful country in the world, and he shouldn't have either. (In fact, the article I found when I researched his SAT scores asks how the hell he got into Harvard with an SAT score of 1206.) Not only is he not as intelligent as he should have been, he is far more arrogant than he has a right to be (thinking he was capable enough to be president), despite his current pose of humility, as described in one of the links.

*btw I didn't study for SAT--in those days we didn't, at least I didn't. Nowadays, they study for weeks, teachers drill them, they take study courses and buy SAT study guides. I suppose because it is more difficult to get into university these days.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your blind hatred of anything and anyone having to go with the left has made YOU ignorant. Your blind defense of Bush and anything Republican makes YOU ignorant. GW Bush is a figure of world wide ridicule and is despised by everyone except partisan Republicans. He is a humiliating embarrassment for Americans. He’s an embarrassment to the GOP who did not even have him in the past two elections help campaign for their presidential candidates.

Bush was a humiliating embarrassment for Americans. As far as carrying himself with more class than other presidents, and the ones you compare him to are all Democrats, that is just ludicrous. Bush is a pig. He has zero class. He is married to a murderer. His daughters were drunken sluts. He is a former druggie and alcoholic. How in the world do you classify him as having class and carrying himself well? He's a joke and a hypocrite. He ruined the country, ruined the economy, killed thousands upon thousands of people by starting two wars, and destroyed respect for America on a world wide scale. People in other parts of the world, and not just the Middle East, call him a war criminal. Trying to resurrect him now is pathetic.

Okay, pay attention twatwaffle, I'm going to type very slowly so that even you will be able to understand... Here we go...

Nothing I typed was in any way, shape, or form close to a diatribe. Over react much? Need a dictionary often?

I do not hate anyone or anything. Project much?

I have voted for and supported candidates of all political stripes, left, right, middle, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent. I am not guided by party ideology. Instead, I vote my conscience. I vote for who or what I believe best represents me and my values. Bush did not. Obama does not. Both have my respect, however. Why? Because they are and were my Presidents.

Neither of the links I posted are meant to be a defense of President Bush, rather they are a study in contrast. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever defended Bush except to call for equal treatment of Obama when he has misstepped. And, considering that except for his father, the only other living presidents are Democrats, to whom would you suggest a comparison be made?

Look, if you can't handle what is contained in the pieces I linked, that's your problem, not mine. But I was right, it does make you angry, stirs that hatred right up, doesn't it?

As for your comments concerning the family and their foibles and tribulations, you strike me as petty, small, and bitter. I can only hope that you and yours have never slipped, broken a law, made a mistake. GOD only knows what you'd say to them.

Oh, and there's no need to repond. You've proven yourself to be nothing more that a myopic, hate filled, partisan hack. I'm through with you.

First, I have more class than you because I don't need to stoop to calling people names when I want to make a point.

What made me angry was not anything about Bush, but being told by you that my opinion was based on nothing but blind hatred. Making assumptions like that indicates your lack of critical thinking skills. I used the phrase 'blind hatred' as a rhetorical technique, repeating your phrase twice in my response to you in order to make a point. Apparently, that point went over your head.

I never used the term 'diatribe,' so apparently it is your reading skills that are in question.

Both of the links you posted describe Bush in far more complimentary terms than he deserves, which makes them a defense of him. Therefore, you do indeed show bias.

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but breaking the law, killing people, being a drunk or hard drug abuser, having children who get caught for DUI and have achieved nothing of distinction....none of those things have anything to do with me, not by a long shot, and they shouldn't have to do with anyone who one claims is a superior being and a leader of the people: those are things low class people do.

In response to the OP: apparently I am smarter than GW as my SAT scores* were higher than his, and that was back in the same era as he took his. I would never have assumed I could lead the most powerful country in the world, and he shouldn't have either. (In fact, the article I found when I researched his SAT scores asks how the hell he got into Harvard with an SAT score of 1206.) Not only is he not as intelligent as he should have been, he is far more arrogant than he has a right to be (thinking he was capable enough to be president), despite his current pose of humility, as described in one of the links.

*btw I didn't study for SAT--in those days we didn't, at least I didn't. Nowadays, they study for weeks, teachers drill them, they take study courses and buy SAT study guides. I suppose because it is more difficult to get into university these days.

You don't like being told you are wrong and that hateful people have been lying to you? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually learn the truth, and stop listening to hate mongers, than to go off on the guy that is telling you the truth?

Have you met Bush personally? If not, how can you say that people who have met him are wrong about their descriptions? I disagree with almost everything he stands for, that does not mean that he has to be stupid just because I think he is wrong. For one thing, it is entirely possible he is right. Fpr another, I actually believe with all my heart that it is possible for people I disagree with to be both wrong and smarter than me.

I would find it really strange that a person who tried to rebuke me for thinking that someone has less education than me simply because I disagreed with them feels so strongly that someone she disagrees with is inherently stupid if I wasn't aware of the blatant hypocrisy that person exhibits every time she posts.

I will state, categorically, that you are not smarter than Bush. Your posts demonstrate that you have no curiosity, that you lack the critical thinking skills you criticize others for lacking, and that you are incapable of learning when to shut up.

 

[there4eyeM]

It matters not at all what others say.

I watched his actions.

I listened to him speak.

I understood his motivations, goals and objectives.

I don't need anyone else's opinion. Is he 'smarter' than I? No. Did he get a higher IQ score than I? I neither know nor care.

Do I want to be president? No.

Would I have made a better president than he? Yes.

Really? How could you have better used your position to allow corporations and Wall Street to trash middle America?

This question leaves me confused. What about my post would lead one to think my presidency would have benefited W.S. even more (if such a thing were even possible)?

I as president would never have wasted American lives, prestige and treasure in the way they were, so the other consequences would never have happened.

 

[Esmeralda]

Okay, pay attention twatwaffle, I'm going to type very slowly so that even you will be able to understand... Here we go...

Nothing I typed was in any way, shape, or form close to a diatribe. Over react much? Need a dictionary often?

I do not hate anyone or anything. Project much?

I have voted for and supported candidates of all political stripes, left, right, middle, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent. I am not guided by party ideology. Instead, I vote my conscience. I vote for who or what I believe best represents me and my values. Bush did not. Obama does not. Both have my respect, however. Why? Because they are and were my Presidents.

Neither of the links I posted are meant to be a defense of President Bush, rather they are a study in contrast. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever defended Bush except to call for equal treatment of Obama when he has misstepped. And, considering that except for his father, the only other living presidents are Democrats, to whom would you suggest a comparison be made?

Look, if you can't handle what is contained in the pieces I linked, that's your problem, not mine. But I was right, it does make you angry, stirs that hatred right up, doesn't it?

As for your comments concerning the family and their foibles and tribulations, you strike me as petty, small, and bitter. I can only hope that you and yours have never slipped, broken a law, made a mistake. GOD only knows what you'd say to them.

Oh, and there's no need to repond. You've proven yourself to be nothing more that a myopic, hate filled, partisan hack. I'm through with you.

First, I have more class than you because I don't need to stoop to calling people names when I want to make a point.

What made me angry was not anything about Bush, but being told by you that my opinion was based on nothing but blind hatred. Making assumptions like that indicates your lack of critical thinking skills. I used the phrase 'blind hatred' as a rhetorical technique, repeating your phrase twice in my response to you in order to make a point. Apparently, that point went over your head.

I never used the term 'diatribe,' so apparently it is your reading skills that are in question.

Both of the links you posted describe Bush in far more complimentary terms than he deserves, which makes them a defense of him. Therefore, you do indeed show bias.

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but breaking the law, killing people, being a drunk or hard drug abuser, having children who get caught for DUI and have achieved nothing of distinction....none of those things have anything to do with me, not by a long shot, and they shouldn't have to do with anyone who one claims is a superior being and a leader of the people: those are things low class people do.

In response to the OP: apparently I am smarter than GW as my SAT scores* were higher than his, and that was back in the same era as he took his. I would never have assumed I could lead the most powerful country in the world, and he shouldn't have either. (In fact, the article I found when I researched his SAT scores asks how the hell he got into Harvard with an SAT score of 1206.) Not only is he not as intelligent as he should have been, he is far more arrogant than he has a right to be (thinking he was capable enough to be president), despite his current pose of humility, as described in one of the links.

*btw I didn't study for SAT--in those days we didn't, at least I didn't. Nowadays, they study for weeks, teachers drill them, they take study courses and buy SAT study guides. I suppose because it is more difficult to get into university these days.

You don't like being told you are wrong and that hateful people have been lying to you? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually learn the truth, and stop listening to hate mongers, than to go off on the guy that is telling you the truth?

Have you met Bush personally? If not, how can you say that people who have met him are wrong about their descriptions? I disagree with almost everything he stands for, that does not mean that he has to be stupid just because I think he is wrong. For one thing, it is entirely possible he is right. Fpr another, I actually believe with all my heart that it is possible for people I disagree with to be both wrong and smarter than me.

I would find it really strange that a person who tried to rebuke me for thinking that someone has less education than me simply because I disagreed with them feels so strongly that someone she disagrees with is inherently stupid if I wasn't aware of the blatant hypocrisy that person exhibits every time she posts.

I will state, categorically, that you are not smarter than Bush. Your posts demonstrate that you have no curiosity, that you lack the critical thinking skills you criticize others for lacking, and that you are incapable of learning when to shut up.

Windbag, you are not in any positon to state anything about anyone else's smarts. Your posts are so vitiperous, so full of hot, swirling, putrid air that no one can get much from them other than you are intellectually in a state of confusion and decay. I've read enough of your posts now, and your inane and childish arguments with others, to know you aren't worth responding to. It isn't worth pointing out all your fallacies and your total lack of clear and sane thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First, I have more class than you because I don't need to stoop to calling people names when I want to make a point.

What made me angry was not anything about Bush, but being told by you that my opinion was based on nothing but blind hatred. Making assumptions like that indicates your lack of critical thinking skills. I used the phrase 'blind hatred' as a rhetorical technique, repeating your phrase twice in my response to you in order to make a point. Apparently, that point went over your head.

I never used the term 'diatribe,' so apparently it is your reading skills that are in question.

Both of the links you posted describe Bush in far more complimentary terms than he deserves, which makes them a defense of him. Therefore, you do indeed show bias.

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but breaking the law, killing people, being a drunk or hard drug abuser, having children who get caught for DUI and have achieved nothing of distinction....none of those things have anything to do with me, not by a long shot, and they shouldn't have to do with anyone who one claims is a superior being and a leader of the people: those are things low class people do.

In response to the OP: apparently I am smarter than GW as my SAT scores* were higher than his, and that was back in the same era as he took his. I would never have assumed I could lead the most powerful country in the world, and he shouldn't have either. (In fact, the article I found when I researched his SAT scores asks how the hell he got into Harvard with an SAT score of 1206.) Not only is he not as intelligent as he should have been, he is far more arrogant than he has a right to be (thinking he was capable enough to be president), despite his current pose of humility, as described in one of the links.

*btw I didn't study for SAT--in those days we didn't, at least I didn't. Nowadays, they study for weeks, teachers drill them, they take study courses and buy SAT study guides. I suppose because it is more difficult to get into university these days.

You don't like being told you are wrong and that hateful people have been lying to you? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually learn the truth, and stop listening to hate mongers, than to go off on the guy that is telling you the truth?

Have you met Bush personally? If not, how can you say that people who have met him are wrong about their descriptions? I disagree with almost everything he stands for, that does not mean that he has to be stupid just because I think he is wrong. For one thing, it is entirely possible he is right. Fpr another, I actually believe with all my heart that it is possible for people I disagree with to be both wrong and smarter than me.

I would find it really strange that a person who tried to rebuke me for thinking that someone has less education than me simply because I disagreed with them feels so strongly that someone she disagrees with is inherently stupid if I wasn't aware of the blatant hypocrisy that person exhibits every time she posts.

I will state, categorically, that you are not smarter than Bush. Your posts demonstrate that you have no curiosity, that you lack the critical thinking skills you criticize others for lacking, and that you are incapable of learning when to shut up.

Windbag, you are not in any positon to state anything about anyone else's smarts. Your posts are so vitiperous, so full of hot, swirling, putrid air that no one can get much from them other than you are intellectually in a state of confusion and decay. I've read enough of your posts now, and your inane and childish arguments with others, to know you aren't worth responding to. It isn't worth pointing out all your fallacies and your total lack of clear and sane thinking.

Nothing you said makes me unintelligent, not even the big words you dug out of the thesaurus. What does make me intelligent is the pun that doubles as an oxymoron I use for my user name that you don't even understand.

 

[asterism]

Your blind hatred of anything and anyone having to go with the left has made YOU ignorant. Your blind defense of Bush and anything Republican makes YOU ignorant. GW Bush is a figure of world wide ridicule and is despised by everyone except partisan Republicans. He is a humiliating embarrassment for Americans. He’s an embarrassment to the GOP who did not even have him in the past two elections help campaign for their presidential candidates.

Bush was a humiliating embarrassment for Americans. As far as carrying himself with more class than other presidents, and the ones you compare him to are all Democrats, that is just ludicrous. Bush is a pig. He has zero class. He is married to a murderer. His daughters were drunken sluts. He is a former druggie and alcoholic. How in the world do you classify him as having class and carrying himself well? He's a joke and a hypocrite. He ruined the country, ruined the economy, killed thousands upon thousands of people by starting two wars, and destroyed respect for America on a world wide scale. People in other parts of the world, and not just the Middle East, call him a war criminal. Trying to resurrect him now is pathetic.

Okay, pay attention twatwaffle, I'm going to type very slowly so that even you will be able to understand... Here we go...

Nothing I typed was in any way, shape, or form close to a diatribe. Over react much? Need a dictionary often?

I do not hate anyone or anything. Project much?

I have voted for and supported candidates of all political stripes, left, right, middle, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent. I am not guided by party ideology. Instead, I vote my conscience. I vote for who or what I believe best represents me and my values. Bush did not. Obama does not. Both have my respect, however. Why? Because they are and were my Presidents.

Neither of the links I posted are meant to be a defense of President Bush, rather they are a study in contrast. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever defended Bush except to call for equal treatment of Obama when he has misstepped. And, considering that except for his father, the only other living presidents are Democrats, to whom would you suggest a comparison be made?

Look, if you can't handle what is contained in the pieces I linked, that's your problem, not mine. But I was right, it does make you angry, stirs that hatred right up, doesn't it?

As for your comments concerning the family and their foibles and tribulations, you strike me as petty, small, and bitter. I can only hope that you and yours have never slipped, broken a law, made a mistake. GOD only knows what you'd say to them.

Oh, and there's no need to repond. You've proven yourself to be nothing more that a myopic, hate filled, partisan hack. I'm through with you.

First, I have more class than you because I don't need to stoop to calling people names when I want to make a point.

What made me angry was not anything about Bush, but being told by you that my opinion was based on nothing but blind hatred. Making assumptions like that indicates your lack of critical thinking skills. I used the phrase 'blind hatred' as a rhetorical technique, repeating your phrase twice in my response to you in order to make a point. Apparently, that point went over your head.

I never used the term 'diatribe,' so apparently it is your reading skills that are in question.

Both of the links you posted describe Bush in far more complimentary terms than he deserves, which makes them a defense of him. Therefore, you do indeed show bias.

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but breaking the law, killing people, being a drunk or hard drug abuser, having children who get caught for DUI and have achieved nothing of distinction....none of those things have anything to do with me, not by a long shot, and they shouldn't have to do with anyone who one claims is a superior being and a leader of the people: those are things low class people do.

In response to the OP: apparently I am smarter than GW as my SAT scores* were higher than his, and that was back in the same era as he took his. I would never have assumed I could lead the most powerful country in the world, and he shouldn't have either. (In fact, the article I found when I researched his SAT scores asks how the hell he got into Harvard with an SAT score of 1206.) Not only is he not as intelligent as he should have been, he is far more arrogant than he has a right to be (thinking he was capable enough to be president), despite his current pose of humility, as described in one of the links.

*btw I didn't study for SAT--in those days we didn't, at least I didn't. Nowadays, they study for weeks, teachers drill them, they take study courses and buy SAT study guides. I suppose because it is more difficult to get into university these days.

Did you support John Kerry in 2004? His SAT score was lower.

 

[Esmeralda]

Okay, pay attention twatwaffle, I'm going to type very slowly so that even you will be able to understand... Here we go...

Nothing I typed was in any way, shape, or form close to a diatribe. Over react much? Need a dictionary often?

I do not hate anyone or anything. Project much?

I have voted for and supported candidates of all political stripes, left, right, middle, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent. I am not guided by party ideology. Instead, I vote my conscience. I vote for who or what I believe best represents me and my values. Bush did not. Obama does not. Both have my respect, however. Why? Because they are and were my Presidents.

Neither of the links I posted are meant to be a defense of President Bush, rather they are a study in contrast. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever defended Bush except to call for equal treatment of Obama when he has misstepped. And, considering that except for his father, the only other living presidents are Democrats, to whom would you suggest a comparison be made?

Look, if you can't handle what is contained in the pieces I linked, that's your problem, not mine. But I was right, it does make you angry, stirs that hatred right up, doesn't it?

As for your comments concerning the family and their foibles and tribulations, you strike me as petty, small, and bitter. I can only hope that you and yours have never slipped, broken a law, made a mistake. GOD only knows what you'd say to them.

Oh, and there's no need to repond. You've proven yourself to be nothing more that a myopic, hate filled, partisan hack. I'm through with you.

First, I have more class than you because I don't need to stoop to calling people names when I want to make a point.

What made me angry was not anything about Bush, but being told by you that my opinion was based on nothing but blind hatred. Making assumptions like that indicates your lack of critical thinking skills. I used the phrase 'blind hatred' as a rhetorical technique, repeating your phrase twice in my response to you in order to make a point. Apparently, that point went over your head.

I never used the term 'diatribe,' so apparently it is your reading skills that are in question.

Both of the links you posted describe Bush in far more complimentary terms than he deserves, which makes them a defense of him. Therefore, you do indeed show bias.

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but breaking the law, killing people, being a drunk or hard drug abuser, having children who get caught for DUI and have achieved nothing of distinction....none of those things have anything to do with me, not by a long shot, and they shouldn't have to do with anyone who one claims is a superior being and a leader of the people: those are things low class people do.

In response to the OP: apparently I am smarter than GW as my SAT scores* were higher than his, and that was back in the same era as he took his. I would never have assumed I could lead the most powerful country in the world, and he shouldn't have either. (In fact, the article I found when I researched his SAT scores asks how the hell he got into Harvard with an SAT score of 1206.) Not only is he not as intelligent as he should have been, he is far more arrogant than he has a right to be (thinking he was capable enough to be president), despite his current pose of humility, as described in one of the links.

*btw I didn't study for SAT--in those days we didn't, at least I didn't. Nowadays, they study for weeks, teachers drill them, they take study courses and buy SAT study guides. I suppose because it is more difficult to get into university these days.

Did you support John Kerry in 2004? His SAT score was lower.

In case it has gone over everyone's head, I referenced SAT scores because earlier in the thread a big deal was made about Bush's.

 

[hjmick]

Your blind hatred of anything and anyone having to go with the left has made YOU ignorant. Your blind defense of Bush and anything Republican makes YOU ignorant. GW Bush is a figure of world wide ridicule and is despised by everyone except partisan Republicans. He is a humiliating embarrassment for Americans. He’s an embarrassment to the GOP who did not even have him in the past two elections help campaign for their presidential candidates.

Bush was a humiliating embarrassment for Americans. As far as carrying himself with more class than other presidents, and the ones you compare him to are all Democrats, that is just ludicrous. Bush is a pig. He has zero class. He is married to a murderer. His daughters were drunken sluts. He is a former druggie and alcoholic. How in the world do you classify him as having class and carrying himself well? He's a joke and a hypocrite. He ruined the country, ruined the economy, killed thousands upon thousands of people by starting two wars, and destroyed respect for America on a world wide scale. People in other parts of the world, and not just the Middle East, call him a war criminal. Trying to resurrect him now is pathetic.

Okay, pay attention twatwaffle, I'm going to type very slowly so that even you will be able to understand... Here we go...

Nothing I typed was in any way, shape, or form close to a diatribe. Over react much? Need a dictionary often?

I do not hate anyone or anything. Project much?

I have voted for and supported candidates of all political stripes, left, right, middle, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent. I am not guided by party ideology. Instead, I vote my conscience. I vote for who or what I believe best represents me and my values. Bush did not. Obama does not. Both have my respect, however. Why? Because they are and were my Presidents.

Neither of the links I posted are meant to be a defense of President Bush, rather they are a study in contrast. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever defended Bush except to call for equal treatment of Obama when he has misstepped. And, considering that except for his father, the only other living presidents are Democrats, to whom would you suggest a comparison be made?

Look, if you can't handle what is contained in the pieces I linked, that's your problem, not mine. But I was right, it does make you angry, stirs that hatred right up, doesn't it?

As for your comments concerning the family and their foibles and tribulations, you strike me as petty, small, and bitter. I can only hope that you and yours have never slipped, broken a law, made a mistake. GOD only knows what you'd say to them.

Oh, and there's no need to repond. You've proven yourself to be nothing more that a myopic, hate filled, partisan hack. I'm through with you.

First, I have more class than you because I don't need to stoop to calling people names when I want to make a point.

What made me angry was not anything about Bush, but being told by you that my opinion was based on nothing but blind hatred. Making assumptions like that indicates your lack of critical thinking skills. I used the phrase 'blind hatred' as a rhetorical technique, repeating your phrase twice in my response to you in order to make a point. Apparently, that point went over your head.

I never used the term 'diatribe,' so apparently it is your reading skills that are in question.

Both of the links you posted describe Bush in far more complimentary terms than he deserves, which makes them a defense of him. Therefore, you do indeed show bias.

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but breaking the law, killing people, being a drunk or hard drug abuser, having children who get caught for DUI and have achieved nothing of distinction....none of those things have anything to do with me, not by a long shot, and they shouldn't have to do with anyone who one claims is a superior being and a leader of the people: those are things low class people do.

In response to the OP: apparently I am smarter than GW as my SAT scores* were higher than his, and that was back in the same era as he took his. I would never have assumed I could lead the most powerful country in the world, and he shouldn't have either. (In fact, the article I found when I researched his SAT scores asks how the hell he got into Harvard with an SAT score of 1206.) Not only is he not as intelligent as he should have been, he is far more arrogant than he has a right to be (thinking he was capable enough to be president), despite his current pose of humility, as described in one of the links.

*btw I didn't study for SAT--in those days we didn't, at least I didn't. Nowadays, they study for weeks, teachers drill them, they take study courses and buy SAT study guides. I suppose because it is more difficult to get into university these days.

I was mistaken, mea culpa. You indeed did not use the word "diatribe." Apologies.

As for having more class... Perhaps, but it's not because I called you a name. That was choice, not a last resort. I don't call enough people names and you caught me on a particularly shitty day...