Is Dubya really a moron ?
- Thread starter sorely
- Start date
TravellingGuy said:Its our own fault really, our society has become less and less involved with what our government is doing
Exactly!TravellingGuy said:So if Chretien and Bush are morons, and we voted them into office (and although you may not have voted for them, I say "we" as a collective society) then isn't it we who are the morons?
Re: In defense of Bush, Churchill.
This reminds me on an email that went around a few years ago. It goes something like this. I can not remember the exact definitions but these are close. Who would you vote for?
Candidate A - Sleeps till noon every day, drinks a quart of liquor each night, did poorly in school.
Candidate B - Womanizer, drinks martinis for lunch, chain smokes.
Candidate C - Vegetarian, hates the site of blood, does not drink or smoke, does not use bad language.
Candidate A is Churchill
Candidate B is FDR
Candidate C is Hitler
In the email you had to pick a candidate and then scroll down to the end to see which was which. Most people given that list and not knowing the names pick C because C sounds like an ethical person. It goes to show that you can not judge greatness just from a brief description of a candidate running for office. That said, I still have a low opinion of both the PM and the Pres. If Bush turns out to be great it will be because he has surrounded himself with smart people and listens to them.
This reminds me on an email that went around a few years ago. It goes something like this. I can not remember the exact definitions but these are close. Who would you vote for?
Candidate A - Sleeps till noon every day, drinks a quart of liquor each night, did poorly in school.
Candidate B - Womanizer, drinks martinis for lunch, chain smokes.
Candidate C - Vegetarian, hates the site of blood, does not drink or smoke, does not use bad language.
Candidate A is Churchill
Candidate B is FDR
Candidate C is Hitler
In the email you had to pick a candidate and then scroll down to the end to see which was which. Most people given that list and not knowing the names pick C because C sounds like an ethical person. It goes to show that you can not judge greatness just from a brief description of a candidate running for office. That said, I still have a low opinion of both the PM and the Pres. If Bush turns out to be great it will be because he has surrounded himself with smart people and listens to them.
Look at this picture and decide for yourself http://www.picmadness.com/?id=88093561
Content Warning - don't click to this site from work - alot of other porn pics on this one
Additional content warning - sorry I just had the link emailed to me - I don't recommend clicking the next picture link - some of this stuff in enough to make you sick -
Content Warning - don't click to this site from work - alot of other porn pics on this one
Additional content warning - sorry I just had the link emailed to me - I don't recommend clicking the next picture link - some of this stuff in enough to make you sick -
Last edited:
I think what set leaders like Churchill and T. Roosevelt apart, was their extraordinary intellectual curiosity; both men were voracious readers, especially Churchill. Bush has almost no intellectual curiosity, and is more a sort of mental couch potatoe (sic). This is why issues he can reduce to black and white, such as Iraq and terrorism, appeal to him so much. The man didn't have to wind up dim, he allowed himself to be.
Sorely,
So do tell, how was the Caribbean? Any reviews coming?
Sorely,
So do tell, how was the Caribbean? Any reviews coming?
Last edited:
I find it very difficult to believe that W's IQ is only 90 . I think he is probably average in this respect . He gets a bit unfairly "tarred " by the northern dominated US media . Average , however , is probably not good enough for the most powerful politician in the world at the moment . In fact it is scary .
He does however have Cheney and Powell ......as opposed to Johnny Crouton who has Sheila Copps....lol .
He does however have Cheney and Powell ......as opposed to Johnny Crouton who has Sheila Copps....lol .
Last edited:
Re: In defense of Bush, Churchill.
Maybe in the U.S., IQ is not relevant. That may be the problem !!!!DonQuixote said:[, IQ is not relevant.
Ciao, DQ. [/B]
Re: Re: Re: Is Dubya really a moron ?
Just ask her. I'm sure she has some juicy comments about our boy Jean !!Don said:
. She should take a look at the current leader of her own party.
I'm afraid you may have just defined yourself.Dr. Gonzo said:Education means very little to me. I know people with doctorates from very fine schools whom I consider complete morons. I've also met janitors that could make your head spin.
We are not talking about formal education; rather we are reviewing native intelligence. I agree that education has much more to do with your experience rather than the schools you went to. Native intelligence , you are born with( or without as may be the case with Dubya ).
Then again "streetsmarts " is probably different from Mensa IQ levels.
There was an interesting comment earlier about the Democratic presidents having higher IQ's. Hmmmmm ???
Another tid-bit here.
I can't recall the source, but I have read that the literacy rate is higher in Cuba than in Taxas, Dubya's home state, where he vacationed as governor.
I have visited Cuba, and based on my experience I believe it to be true.
I can't recall the source, but I have read that the literacy rate is higher in Cuba than in Taxas, Dubya's home state, where he vacationed as governor.
I have visited Cuba, and based on my experience I believe it to be true.
Now if..
Their government would let them read anything other than propaganda and 'approved' literature, they'd be on their way, wouldn't they?Paul Waters said:Another tid-bit here.
I can't recall the source, but I have read that the literacy rate is higher in Cuba than in Taxas, Dubya's home state, where he vacationed as governor.
I have visited Cuba, and based on my experience I believe it to be true.
I think something should be kept in mind when considering both George W. Bush and Jean Creitien. Niether man is stupid. Both men suffer from a problem with articulation. To coin a new phrase, I don't believe either man is "functionally articulate".
Their lack of ability to express their ideas coherently (For Creitien this may only apply to English, I certainly couldn't judge his ability to speak in French) hinders our ability to accurately apparaise them.
I personally don't like the policies of the Bush Administration or the "United States Inc." but I would be very wary about calling Bush a moron, despite his demonstrated lack of geographical knowledge and some other educational short comings.
Somehow I think this makes people more comfortable dealing with him. Many believe it was this "folksy" appeal that won him the White House. I also think a lot of people are content with Bush's supposed intellectual defeciencies as it gives them the ability to believe that the president is not clever enough to carry out some cunning, devious plan behind the backs of the people. So in some way the people don't have to worry about an "enemy within" at a time when the Americans feel so besieged by the "enemy without". As for the correctness of these views, only time will tell.
But for now, moron or not, Dubya is the driving the bus. We had better either get on board or learn some way to effectively guard against being run over by said bus.
Their lack of ability to express their ideas coherently (For Creitien this may only apply to English, I certainly couldn't judge his ability to speak in French) hinders our ability to accurately apparaise them.
I personally don't like the policies of the Bush Administration or the "United States Inc." but I would be very wary about calling Bush a moron, despite his demonstrated lack of geographical knowledge and some other educational short comings.
Somehow I think this makes people more comfortable dealing with him. Many believe it was this "folksy" appeal that won him the White House. I also think a lot of people are content with Bush's supposed intellectual defeciencies as it gives them the ability to believe that the president is not clever enough to carry out some cunning, devious plan behind the backs of the people. So in some way the people don't have to worry about an "enemy within" at a time when the Americans feel so besieged by the "enemy without". As for the correctness of these views, only time will tell.
But for now, moron or not, Dubya is the driving the bus. We had better either get on board or learn some way to effectively guard against being run over by said bus.
Good points
I know from personal experience that I can't articulate very well in a public speaking function but apparently I'm considered above the norm in intellect (or maybe my friends are humouring me).
Perhaps W's is a bit deficient intellectually but if you were in opposition underestimating him is a bad idea. Maybe that's why the Dem's lost the mid-terms.
I'm sure somewhere in Clausewitz or Sun Tsu there's some quote alone that line.
Remo, I think you make some good points. It seems to that Bush and Reagan before him are considered morons by their political opponents but it seemed in the end, that they got the better of it.Remo said:I think something should be kept in mind when considering both George W. Bush and Jean Creitien. Niether man is stupid. Both men suffer from a problem with articulation. To coin a new phrase, I don't believe either man is "functionally articulate".
Their lack of ability to express their ideas coherently (For Creitien this may only apply to English, I certainly couldn't judge his ability to speak in French) hinders our ability to accurately apparaise them.
I know from personal experience that I can't articulate very well in a public speaking function but apparently I'm considered above the norm in intellect (or maybe my friends are humouring me).
Perhaps W's is a bit deficient intellectually but if you were in opposition underestimating him is a bad idea. Maybe that's why the Dem's lost the mid-terms.
I'm sure somewhere in Clausewitz or Sun Tsu there's some quote alone that line.
Dr. Gonzo said:I was simply stating that his formal education isn't a really accurate measure of how intelligent Mr. Bush is.
That's for sure ! Somehow he actually graduated from Yale. It's amazing what family donations can achieve ! Also, there was probably a male quota deficiency as so many of his peers were fighting in the jungles of Viet Nam.
Where was Georgie-boy ? Maybe he received a medical classification for reduced IQ level.
Remo said:I But for now, moron or not, Dubya is the driving the bus.
HOLY SHIT !!!!!
Is that ever a scary image !!!
Re: Good points
I think Bush has the same appeal. Most of the US is not New York or LA but Des Moines IA (something that the New Yorkers often forget). I think many Americans are more comfortable with him than a technocrat know it all like Gore. Even a guy like Carter, whose intellect was above both Regan and either Bush’s' connected, how intimidating can a peanut farmer from GA be? And Clinton, have you ever been to AK? And his mother with the skunk hair, white trash all the way. Perhaps a previous post was correct, the American voter distrusts slick and established?
OTB
I think the Regan analogy is a good one. His detractors often portrayed him as intellectually weak, although he was a great public speaker in a folksy way. And he changed a lot of things in the US.jbl00 said:
Remo, I think you make some good points. It seems to that Bush and Reagan before him are considered morons by their political opponents but it seemed in the end, that they got the better of it.
I know from personal experience that I can't articulate very well in a public speaking function but apparently I'm considered above the norm in intellect (or maybe my friends are humouring me).
Perhaps W's is a bit deficient intellectually but if you were in opposition underestimating him is a bad idea. Maybe that's why the Dem's lost the mid-terms.
I'm sure somewhere in Clausewitz or Sun Tsu there's some quote alone that line.
I think Bush has the same appeal. Most of the US is not New York or LA but Des Moines IA (something that the New Yorkers often forget). I think many Americans are more comfortable with him than a technocrat know it all like Gore. Even a guy like Carter, whose intellect was above both Regan and either Bush’s' connected, how intimidating can a peanut farmer from GA be? And Clinton, have you ever been to AK? And his mother with the skunk hair, white trash all the way. Perhaps a previous post was correct, the American voter distrusts slick and established?
OTB
