Who voted for Bush

[jonny]

True. But I combination of both would be preferable. Bush has neither.

Prove it.

 

[lilithu]

About as valid as making a judgment on the intelligence of someone you've never had a conversation with. I'm willing to bet that the way Bush speaks has a lot to do with people's judgements on his intelligence...

Yes, an inability to speak in coherent sentences does affect my view of a person's intelligence. How in the world is that the same as judging someone based on whether they have an accent or not?? I can't believe you think you can justify this.

 

[jonny]

It's great to know that your decision was based on aesthetics rather than on substance. You weren't the only one to subject all of America to the worst president we have ever had.

That isn't the only reason why I voted for Bush.

Obviously, I have opposed Shrub from the onset. However, I thought his dad was fine, and I might even be convinced to vote for his brother, Jeb. Shrub is as morally bankrupt as he is stupid.

Perhaps, but I'd rather have had Bush than either Gore or Kerry. There were plenty of other democrats that I would have voted for. Unfortunately, none of them were liberal enough to be nominated.

 

[spacemonkey]

Is Clinton remembered for his intellect, or his ability to relate to the American people? Democrats parade Clinton as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Why the change of heart now?

Again, I ask "what qualifies someone to lead our country?" Intellectualism doesn't equal leadership. That's why the people in school getting the C's usually end up being the bosses of the people getting straight A's.

Actually yes, he was a noted intellectual prowess. He recieved a B.S.F.S. (Bachlelor of Science of Foreign Service) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_A._Walsh_School_of_Foreign_Service after which he recieved a Rhodes Scholarship to OXFORD. After Oxford, he went on to recieve a Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School.

Oh, and those "C" students are only the "A" students boss while the "A" student is waiting tables to put themselves through school to get a better job.

 

[jonny]

Yes, an inability to speak in coherent sentences does affect my view of a person's intelligence. How in the world is that the same as judging someone based on whether they have an accent or not?? I can't believe you think you can justify this.

His grammar sounds a lot like other people I know from that part of the country, and it was his accent that I was referring to. My friends from Texas aren't stupid either. I'm a horrible public speaker, but I'm plenty intelligent. Sometimes I even use poor grammar! I've got other strengths. So does he.

He was smart enough to con the entire country and quite a few other countries into going to war...twice! He can't be completely stupid.

 

[ayani]

He was smart enough to con the entire country and quite a few other countries into going to war...twice! He can't be completely stupid.

not sure i would call that behavior "smart", jonny. conniving and irresponsible, sure. but not smart.

 

[spacemonkey]

His grammar sounds a lot like other people I know from that part of the country, and it was his accent that I was referring to. My friends from Texas aren't stupid either. I'm a horrible public speaker, but I'm plenty intelligent. Sometimes I even use poor grammar! I've got other strengths. So does he.

He was smart enough to con the entire country and quite a few other countries into going to war...twice! He can't be completely stupid.

There is a differance between bad grammer and MAKING UP WORDS...like strategery.

 

[jonny]

Um, yes, actually Clinton is remembered for his intellect.

(btw, I can't stress enough I am a member of no political party, now will I ever be. But you asked an historical question.)

Not in this part of the country.

I'd be interested to see your source of evidence for this assertion.

Experience.

 

[spacemonkey]

Not in this part of the country

Are you trying to say that in your part of the country intelligence is somehow measured differantly? Are you from the Bizzaro universe where everything is the opposite?

 

[jonny]

Actually yes, he was a noted intellectual prowess. He recieved a B.S.F.S. (Bachlelor of Science of Foreign Service) from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_A._Walsh_School_of_Foreign_Service after which he recieved a Rhodes Scholarship to OXFORD. After Oxford, he went on to recieve a Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School.

And Bush

Oh, and those "C" students are only the "A" students boss while the "A" student is waiting tables to put themselves through school to get a better job.

Have you ever read "The Millionaire Next Door" or "The Millionaire Mind"? Hate to break it to you, but it isn't the A students who usually become millionaires...I know, I'm associating income with employment status, but let's just ignore that. You get my point. The average millionaire has a 2.92 GPA and an SAT score between 1100 and 1300.

 

[jonny]

Are you trying to say that in your part of the country intelligence is somehow measured differantly? Are you from the Bizzaro universe where everything is the opposite?

I guarantee if you polled Utahns about Clinton's legacy that intelligence wouldn't be on the list. The questions isn't whether or not Clinton was intelligent. The question is whether or not that is what people remember him for and voted for him for.

 

[jonny]

There is a differance between bad grammer and MAKING UP WORDS...like strategery.

How about making up spellings for words, like differance.

BTW, Strategery is one of my favorite words now. Come on, you've gotta admit that it's a lot cooler to say than strategy.

 

[lilithu]

His grammar sounds a lot like other people I know from that part of the country, and it was his accent that I was referring to. My friends from Texas aren't stupid either. I'm a horrible public speaker, but I'm plenty intelligent. Sometimes I even use poor grammar! I've got other strengths. So does he.

I have no problem with a Texas accent, as I have no problem with the varieties of Southern accents. And I don't know who you know from Texas but my friends from the Lone Star state have no problem making complete sentences.

He was smart enough to con the entire country and quite a few other countries into going to war...twice! He can't be completely stupid.

I never said he was completely stupid. I said he was not intelligent enough for me to trust him with my country. Not just not particularly intelligent, but pathologically anti-intellectual. As for convincing countries to go to war:
3,000 coalition soldiers are dead, over 2,700 being from the U.S.
tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead
we are 8.5 trillion dollars in debt, growing by 1.68 billion dollars/day with no end in sight
(Halliburton otoh is billions richer)

If it was a mistake on his part, that shows why intelligence is an essential trait in a president. And if it was a con, as you say, then he is a traiter and should be tried as such. Which is it?

 

[jonny]

I guarantee if you polled Utahns about Clinton's legacy that intelligence wouldn't be on the list. The questions isn't whether or not Clinton was intelligent. The question is whether or not that is what people remember him for and voted for him for.

Just to add a little to this, most Utahns remember Clinton for stealing 1.7 million acres of desert and turning it into a wilderness area. By stealing this land he stole $1 billion from Utah's schools. That's the legacy that Clinton left in Utah.

 

[jonny]

If it was a mistake on his part, that shows why intelligence is an essential trait in a president. And if it was a con, as you say, then he is a traiter and should be tried as such. Which is it?

I was being sarcastic when I said conned...

Now, should we start listing mistakes presidents made? How about Clinton ignoring attacks from terrorists or the B.J. in the Oval Office? How about Bush I not getting rid of Saddam the first time? How about Iran Contra? What about Vietnam? How about our founding fathers allowing slavery in the constitution? The list could go on and on. History will determine where mistakes have been made. History will also determine where there has been success.

 

[spacemonkey]

Sorry to break it to you, but Bush only recieved a B.A. in history from Yale, and the only reason we was able to get in there is because his father was a high profile Alumn. Bush later attended Harverd Buisness School but didn't complete it. So please do not compare Bush's education to Clinton's, its not even close.

BTW, accumulating money doesn't require a high IQ, just a lack of morals. The majority of high intellectuals usually take positions at Universities that allow them to advance their field of study, usually at pretty low wages. They are the ones who create vaccines and cure diseases.

 

[spacemonkey]

How about making up spellings for words, like differance.

BTW, Strategery is one of my favorite words now. Come on, you've gotta admit that it's a lot cooler to say than strategy.

This is about Bush, not my ability (or lack thereof) to type and spell.

 

[lilithu]

Is Clinton remembered for his intellect, or his ability to relate to the American people? Democrats parade Clinton as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Why the change of heart now?

What change of heart??! Dems admire Clinton for both his intellect and his ability to relate to the people.

Again, I ask "what qualifies someone to lead our country?" Intellectualism doesn't equal leadership.

Intelligence by itself does not make a good president, but it is necessary.

That's why the people in school getting the C's usually end up being the bosses of the people getting straight A's.

Um.... no. Do you really believe that??! If you are really telling the above lie to yourself and your friends and the kids you know, you're hurting yourselves gravely.

http://www.salary.com/learning/layouthtmls/leal_display_nocat_Ser285_Par409.html

 

[spacemonkey]

I was being sarcastic when I said conned...

Now, should we start listing mistakes presidents made? How about Clinton ignoring attacks from terrorists or the B.J. in the Oval Office? How about Bush I not getting rid of Saddam the first time? How about Iran Contra? What about Vietnam? How about our founding fathers allowing slavery in the constitution? The list could go on and on. History will determine where mistakes have been made. History will also determine where there has been success.

1. Clinton did not ignore terrorist attacks, take it from someone who was in the Navy when the USS Cole was bombed.

2. Do you think Clinton was the first to recieve a BJ from someone other then his wife in the Oval Office? If so you are naive. Besides, how does that affect his ability to run the country?

3. Bush the Elder didn't get rid of Saddam the first time around because HE PLACED HIM IN POWER when Bush was the head of the CIA.

4. The Iran/Contra affair involved many of the people that Bush the Younger has appointed to his cabinet or other postions, most notably Don Rumsfeld.

5. Again, in Vietnam, we see Mr. Rumsfeld involved.

6. Slavery was included in the Constitution because that was the only way it would have been ratifed by the required 2/3rds of the colonies.

 

[lilithu]

Now, should we start listing mistakes presidents made? How about Clinton ignoring attacks from terrorists or the B.J. in the Oval Office? How about Bush I not getting rid of Saddam the first time? How about Iran Contra? What about Vietnam? How about our founding fathers allowing slavery in the constitution? The list could go on and on. History will determine where mistakes have been made. History will also determine where there has been success.

There are mistakes and then there are mistakes. And when mistakes are collosal, history judges sooner than later.

George Bush Sr. did not get rid of Saddam the first time around because he knew it would throw the region into chaos. You have to prove that it was the right thing to do to get rid of Saddam before you can say that Sr. made a mistake in not doing so.

Iran-Contra was not a mistake; it was an intentional deception.

Clinton did not ignore attacks btw.

Dated August 1998
U.S. Cruise Missiles Strike Sudan and Afghan Targets Tied to Terrorist Network

WASHINGTON -- Dozens of U.S. cruise missiles struck targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan on Thursday in what President Clinton described as an act of self-defense against imminent terrorist plots and of retribution for the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa two weeks ago. The strikes were launched from ships in the Arabian and Red Seas at dusk. It was not immediately clear whether the raids were a military success. Pentagon officials said that no Americans died but that they had no immediate estimate of other casualties or damage. Early Friday, an Islamic press agency reported 15 deaths from the bombings in Afghanistan.

With about 75 missiles timed to explode simultaneously in unsuspecting countries on two continents, the operation was the most formidable U.S. military assault ever against a private sponsor of terrorism.

The targets were identified by Pentagon officials as an extensive terrorism training complex in Afghanistan, 94 miles south of Kabul, and a factory for the building blocks of chemical weapons near Khartoum, the Sudan.

Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans and nearly 300 Africans.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082198attack-us.html