|
|
Post by rockysigman on Sept 6, 2006 11:44:37 GMT -5
I should add  |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 6, 2006 12:03:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 6, 2006 12:11:10 GMT -5
It does matter how you measure intellect, I suppose. For the record, I meant it in the way that everyone, everywhere has always meant it, as opposed to people who can't stand to admit that Bush isn't smart define it. Those are really the only two ways though. Okay Rocky, let's count the ways. IQ -- higher than some of the "intellects" you've voted for. So I'll give him a check. Ivy League education - check Post-graduate degrees - check Being informed of what is happening in the world - check (don't mistake reacting the way you would prescribe with being informed ... it'll lead some to question your intellect) Being well-spoken - usually gets a minus there, but in the big moments (WTC rubble, address to Congress following 9/11, etc) he'd be eding towards a check minus It's fun to delclare the guy an idiot because he says stupid things, and does silly things like going to the wrong door or choking on a pretzel. If that is proof of his being an idiot then I'd encourage you to review the Random Top 10 board. It's got quite a few examples of Mary doing some silly stupid thing, and I am rather confident in saying that anyone around here who would question her intellect needs to review the definition of the word. You can (and will) dismiss all of this as my being the silly girl who refuses to see the world as it really is because I'm blinded by my unexplanined love forthe guy. That's fine. Just remember that if that's true, then I'm justified in dismissing you as being the silly guy who refuses to see the world as it really is because he's blinded by his hate for the guy. See, it goes both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 6, 2006 12:12:53 GMT -5
I'll just add -- I'm having a hard time finding the intellect in an argument against a president that has been the same damn "he's stupid" line for 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 6, 2006 12:27:29 GMT -5
Why should it change though? If we believe the guy really isn't that smart why should argument against him change?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Sept 6, 2006 12:28:46 GMT -5
Okay Rocky, let's count the ways. IQ -- higher than some of the "intellects" you've voted for. So I'll give him a check. I haven't seen those numbers, but I'll take your word for it. Also, you don't know who I've voted for, so whatever. This is not a measure of intellect. At all. Again, this is a measure of education, not intellect. This is just false for all practical purposes. Yes, he probably knows that certain things are happening, but he has continually demonstrated a complete lack of understanding for why they're happening, or what the consequences of certain responses are. He flaunts a lack of understanding for history. And it has nothing to do with how I personally would like him to respond, because for many of his biggest blunders, there were experts from both within and outside of his circle of advisors who warned him of what was going to happen. This is the most blatant area where he has demonstrated his lack of intellect. His speaking abilities are downright embarrassing. For everyone who spoke of how Clinton's blowjob damaged our standing in the world, having a leader who sounds like a moron when he speaks is far more damaging. But this still doesn't bother me nearly as much as his policies. Yes, a lot of people joke about Bush's stupid public displays. But I think most of the people here were talking about much more substantial things than the incident with the door. For the record, the total number of deaths resulting for an incident in which Mary did something silly is, to my knowledge, zero. So Bush's lack of understanding for history and other cultures did not lead us into a pointless war with no end in sight? He hasn't squandered the good will that the world held towards us after 9/11? My god, my blind hatred for the guy is really confusing... |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 6, 2006 12:30:27 GMT -5
The same reason your Hitchens quote is stupid...it is the easy joke? Sure it is. Does that mean it's not true? No.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Sept 6, 2006 12:35:47 GMT -5
Also, any public figure who says something stupid, ever, will always be made fun of. Always will be that way, always has been. Bush does it a lot more than others. That's the least as far as evidence of his stupidity goes, but I think it's pointless to complain that it's become a joke. Joking about Bush's lack of speaking abilities has less to do with hatred for the guy and more to do with the fact that pretty much everyone enjoys making fun of public figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 6, 2006 12:45:55 GMT -5
It's nothing short of hypocritical when the same guys who whine and complain over the big deal made about Clinton's blow jobs will resort on "Bush is dumb" jokes as the primary argument against the guy. An anti-Clinton person who can come up with nothing more to argue against the guy than Monica Lewinsky is braindead and does not deserve tobe taken seriously. If you can't argue against his policies, shut up. The same holds true for dumb jokes and Bush. If you've got a real case againstthe guy, argue against his policies, not the same sorry shit day after day. THAT is a lack of intellect, and that is the point of the very true Hitchen's quote.
The arrogance of "if you don't do it my way then you're an idiot" doesn't even deserve to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Sept 6, 2006 12:59:12 GMT -5
I don't think very many people complained about Clinton blowjob jokes when they were just jokes. It only became annoying when certain people took that to be more important than his policies and the consequences of his policies. I think Clinton blowjob jokes are still funny.
And it's a totally different thing anyway, because Bush's stupidity is directly related to his policies and the failure of those policies.
Are you trying to say that no one is making substantive policy arguments against Bush?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 6, 2006 13:02:32 GMT -5
But there are very real arguments being made against Bush...many of which tie into his policies. You don't think the question of whether he knew their were two different sects in Iraq more then a few days before invaiding is a question of both? Sure, cheap shots are fun and quite frankly to be expected but there are very real issues that question both his policies and his intelligence. Hitchens quote is only true if you apply a fasle premise to all of Bush detracters...if the only complaint was that he don't talk good then you and Hitchens would be aboslutely correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 6, 2006 13:02:45 GMT -5
Around here lately - yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 6, 2006 13:05:32 GMT -5
We've been through it all though. Around here it's all rehash, I'm not going to change your mind so why shouldn't I make jokes?
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Sept 6, 2006 13:06:00 GMT -5
George W. Bush is the clear result of years of anti-intellectual bias in this country. This is what happens when you elect someone you connect with versus someone who isolates by being too brainy. What's so ridiculous with wanting your President to be a better person than you are? AMEN! I (for one) want to have a President who I look at and go "that guy is a hell of a lot smarter and better informed than I am. Of course. Let's be fair. GW Bush should never have been President. It's not just that few believe he has a better grasp on affairs than the average American; it's that he seems to lack the basic intellectual gravitas to appropriately deal with the all-important grey area that happens to make up matters of national significance. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Sept 6, 2006 13:25:22 GMT -5
Junior is clearly the best president since Bill Clinton ... !!
|
|
