Dubya: "do you have blacks too?"

[rafmed]

Truman may be a "great" president in your text book, for the rest of the WORLD he was the guy that "pulled " the trigger to kill in a single day 60,000 persons in Hiroshima leaving 100,000 wounded, and 200,000 homeless, 3 days later "pulled" the trigger again in Nagasaki, 40,000 deads and similar numbers of wounded and homeless.

 

[diamond]

When I said great this is how the Media/Historians portray him as.

Peace
DB9
:idea:

 

[Achtung Bubba]

As always Bubba show how smart he is, I think is very hard to defend Mr. Bush intelligence (or lack of it), is more easy to attack someone else, I guess we all know who Bill Clinton was. this makes Bush IQ higher?

No, it is easy to defend Bush's intelligence. I did so above: I think the evidence to the contrary is overblown - and only evidence of his tendency to get tongue-tied, not any innate lack of intelligence.

I bring up Clinton not because it "makes Bush IQ higher," but because the ability to wax eloquent is NOT the most important thing: Clinton was a great speaker, but he was also a liar. Bush may not be an eloquent speaker, but he is much more honest. I prefer the latter.


And while we're on the subject of connecting eloquence in communication to innate intelligence, I must remind everyone here that there are a LOT of forum members here who cannot spell, who have trouble with subject-verb agreement, who do not use proper capitalization and punctuation, and who tend to create run-on and fragment sentences.

It would be VERY poor form for me to accuse everyone who makes some sort of error on this forum of being a "moron." I too occasionaly blunder, and I generally withhold such comments as long as the gist is easily found.

But as I demonstrated in my first post in this thread, it is at least ironic that those who criticize Bush for getting facts wrong or misspeaking also THEMSELVES get facts wrong or mistype. It is at least ironic; it is probably hypocritical.

Ask yourself this: do YOU want to be judged by how well you communicate on this forum?

Your wish can be easily granted.

 

[DrTeeth]

And why are we talking about Truman now???

More fun with Dubya:
"Over 75 percent of white Americans own their home and less than 50 percent of Hispanos and African Americans don't own their home. And that's a gap, that's a homeownership gap. And we've got to do something about it."

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Truman may be a "great" president in your text book, for the rest of the WORLD he was the guy that "pulled " the trigger to kill in a single day 60,000 persons in Hiroshima leaving 100,000 wounded, and 200,000 homeless, 3 days later "pulled" the trigger again in Nagasaki, 40,000 deads and similar numbers of wounded and homeless.

Those acts, if I remember, had three beneficial results:

1) It ended the most devastating war in human history.

2) We won.

3) The terrible power of nuclear weaponry was made so clear that it has not been used since.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

And why are we talking about Truman now???

More fun with Dubya:
"Over 75 percent of white Americans own their home and less than 50 percent of Hispanos and African Americans don't own their home. And that's a gap, that's a homeownership gap. And we've got to do something about it."

Wherefore are you scratching your head?

Is the quote not easily understood? Many people do NOT own their homes - they live there through paying off mortgages, or by paying rent in generally less expensive apartments.

If Bush is right, most white Americans have paid off their mortgages, and most blacks and Hispanics have not; they are either paying off the mortgage, living in an apartment, or in some other arrangement.

That is problematic: it is indicative of a gap in wealth and certainly means that blacks and Hispanics have less property from which to find capital: it's easier to take out a single mortgage on your home for a loan than to take out a second mortgage while paying off the first.

Why is that difficult to understand?

(Yet another example, I believe, of overstating Bush's lack of intelligence.)

 

[hiphop]

Ask yourself this: do YOU want to be judged by how well you communicate on this forum?

Your wish can be easily granted.

There is a big difference:

Bush is The President of the United States and therefore is expected to communicate properly. If he is not able to, he should go back to school. I think he would be able, but maybe he uses this pseudo stupidity to show off how much streetlife he is. Btw, also bad publicity is publicity.

rafmed is not the President of the United States and therefore can talk like he wants. I doubt Bubba is expressing himself in rafmeds mother tongue as well as rafmed in English.

And, Bubba: be careful with the usage of the word "Judge" or "judging" if you don?t want to be called upon it.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

There is a big difference:

Bush is The President of the United States and therefore is expected to communicate properly. If he is not able to, he should go back to school. I think he would be able, but maybe he uses this pseudo stupidity to show off how much streetlife he is. Btw, also bad publicity is publicity.

rafmed is not the President of the United States and therefore can talk like he wants. I doubt Bubba is expressing himself in rafmeds mother tongue as well as rafmed in English.

And, Bubba: be careful with the usage of the word "Judge" or "judging" if you don?t want to be called upon it.

There is not just an expectation to communicate well, there is a logical leap from the occasional verbal misstep to a LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. That logical connection, if it exists, has nothing to do with who Bush is: it either applies to everyone, or it doesn't apply.

Certainly, someone with severe learning disabilities will have trouble talking - but many here are suggesting the reverse, that trouble talking implies something akin to a learning disability, despite the fact that many very smart people have trouble speaking.

(And I understand that certain people here do not speak English as a first language, but that still does not give them carte blanche to connect Bush's missteps to stupidity. Further, there ARE those who speak English as a first language and who have no excuse. Hi Bias appears to be one of them, and yet he was wrong about President Bush's age.)

I try not to judge people unnecessarily, and I do not wish to do so now. But if people are going to suggest that Bush is dumb because he misspeaks, they demand such scrutiny themselves.

Christ teaches that those who are without error should cast the first stone. Many Bush-bashers are throwing so many stones that I am beginning to question the flawlessness of their own communication skills.

 

[Basstrap]

bush is over-rated
I'm sick of his cheesy phrases

"we're gonna hunt them down"
"Axis of evil"
"You're either for us or against us"

he either uses a dictionary of cliches or has a room full of monkeys writing his speeches.

 

[diamond]

There is a big difference:

Bush is The President of the United States and therefore is expected to communicate properly. If he is not able to, he should go back to school. I think he would be able, but maybe he uses this pseudo stupidity to show off how much streetlife he is. Btw, also bad publicity is publicity.

rafmed is not the President of the United States and therefore can talk like he wants. I doubt Bubba is expressing himself in rafmeds mother tongue as well as rafmed in English.

And, Bubba: be careful with the usage of the word "Judge" or "judging" if you don?t want to be called upon it.

Hiphop-
Plez refer to my Truman posts.
BassTrap- Your view would be different if your homeland was attacked, perhaps?:idea:

Peace-
DB9
:idea:

 

[joyfulgirl]

I think the question of Bush's intelligence in this thread was initially raised not so much because of the way he often misspeaks, but rather because of the fact that he didn't know that there are blacks in Brazil. The President of the United States (whose position has often been equated to 'The Leader of the Free World') should be well-traveled and well-learned--I would go so far as to say better than just about anyone else in the world. Bush may be 'bright' in the 'average guy' kind of sense, but that's a far cry from being brilliant enough to be the kind of leader that position requires. He is an embarrassment to the office (as was Clinton, for different reasons), in my opinion.

 

[diamond]

Umm I agree w you there Joyful.
I cringed when I read that:idea:
However I would take GWs integrity over Clintons for being a better leader.

Peace-
Diamond
:idea:

 

[rafmed]

My dear Bubba
I think ( correct me if I'm wrong) that my english is good enough for you to understand me, and while I have never presumed to be perfect by any means, any mistake by my use of the english language is harmless, since its not my purpouse to RULE the world, oposed to Mr. Bush, who, maybe, should be better informed.
By the way, if that makes you happy, feel free to JUDGE my writing.

Joyful girl is true about her statement.

Thanks to whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

 

[KingPin]

I do believe that President Bush is a very smart man - just not the most well-spoken. Sure, opponents will claim that people write his speeches, and that's true: but I believe, as is the case with MOST politicians, the speechwriters merely crystalize, organize, and strengthen what Bush himself wants to say; and Bush himself has final approval of every speech.

What about his lack of knowledge on world politics? Or even American politics? Like someone said, he thought the Taliban was a Brass Band. He thought Canada's Prime Minister's name was Jean Poutine! (Canada is the US's largest trade partner). While fighting for freedom, he's said that there should be limits on freedom... I would think that such a statement would appall you, considering your love for your country's freedoms.

The alternative is ridiculous: it's difficult to suggest without evidence that some writer came up with the politically charged phrase "axis of evil" and Bush just nodded his head and went with it.

I can definitely believe that. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush didn't know what an "Axis" is referring to.

The second reason I accept the verbal missteps is that I do believe he's a fairly honest guy. It seems to me that the last President was Bush's opposite in two respects: President Clinton was an undeniably talented speaker but also a congenital liar. Certainly, he lied about his so-called private life, a life that was led in the public offices of the White House, a life he was compelled to explain under Oath; but he also lied about policy. He lied about the state of things ("worst economy in fifty years"), lied about his and his opponents' track records, and lied about what bills did. I was always under the impression that he never made a campaign promise he actually meant; and he met that low expectation.

(The latest edition of Bartlett's collection of well-known quotes contains, I believe, only three Clinton quotes: how he "didn't inhale," how he "didn't have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," and his question about the meaning of the word "is." Granted, none of these were written by speechmakers, but they were all tied to Clinton's efforts to cover his own ass through deception.)

Almost everything Clinton said was witty, but also quite untrustworthy. Bush occasionally misspeaks, but we know what he meant, and I believe he means what he says. Certainly, his track record isn't perfect - particularly in backtracking on his opposition to McCain-Feingold and in his unwillingness to direct the domestic agenda so that he can fulfill his campaign promises - but I still think he's much more trustworthy than Clinton, and I'll take his foibles if that includes his honesty..

What about Bush's history of drugs and alcohol, that he has often denied or ignored? What about his discovered violation of Federal Security laws and his insider trading that should have earned him stiff penalties? He's been saying he was cleared of those charges, when in fact he was not... that's a lie. (ReadHERE)He's been telling a joke about how he responded to a question from a reporter... when the incident never happened (readHERE).

Regarding the "many other shady things" surrounding the Bush Administration, the ONLY thing that comes to mind is Enron. Bush knew those who ran Enron - but they were all in the Texas oil business, so that's not surprising. There IS NO evidence of wrongdoing on Bush's part - no evidence that his friendships involved the mishandling of Enron itself.

Sure, the administration could be more forthcoming with its information, but there are precedents for keeping some information internal - and the Democrats can always make efforts to force the White House's hand, and THEY HAVEN'T.

Truth is, Democrats don't want to find out the truth: the appearance of "shady things" is MUCH more politically useful (particularly if the truth is benign), and a thorough investigation is just as likely to cast a bad light on Democrats who are themselves closely tied to Enron - like Bill Clinton.

And another truth is that the Democrats don't even know what to charge Bush with: first, he was supposed to have helped Enron, but his policies did the opposite. Then, the accusation was that his efforts helped sink Enron - THEN the accusation was that, for some odd reason, Bush should have publically told Enron stockholders to sell.

At the moment, the accusations are nothing more than that: accusations, in this case perpurtrated by a party that's still pissed about the election and willing to do practically anything to win back political power.

SHADY THINGS:
1. The amount of knowledge sent to the US government and pentagon pre 9/11 by other world intelligence agencies. There were several notices sent to the US about an attack, an attack using planes, an attack on the world trade center, and an attack in early September. Even if they didn't know for sure, do you think that with news from all over the world about a terrorist attack, that Bush would be away on vacation? With all this commotion, he would just be relaxing?
2. How after the attacks, they quickly sealed up presidential records of the past several terms, under the name of "national security"...
3. Trying to set up the TIPS system where 1 in 24 americans would be citizen spies! Can we say Big Brother? Thankfully they pulled out of it after a HUGE public outcry.
4. Backing out of international anti-torture laws... We talk about how cruelly women were treated under the Taliban, and how our way is so much better... we talk about the glorious human rights and freedoms in the USA... yet we're not ruling out the idea of torture??? What are we, in the middle ages?

It's like the accusations about Republicans wanting to kill the elderly and starve children. If the accusations were believable, then we'd have something to discuss. Until that point, they condemn the accusers much more than the accused.

I'm sure those accusations were nothing more than exaggeration and hyperbole. Of course nobody is saying they're out to hunt seniors... they're saying that their policies show that they are not very interested in the welfare of seniors and poor children. And I don't think that's a stretch to believe at all. We're not debating those accusations because they happened in another thread some time ago... and because they're obvious exaggerations. Let that go, and stop holding on to it in an attempt to discredit others. It really only applies to one guy, yet your debatingwith all of us, so there's no point in using it against anybody but him.

 

[Diemen]

ya know Diamond, you're an alright guy. See, at least you can admit that "do you have blacks, too?" is an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

Bubba, while I agree with some if not most of what you say, I think you're missing the initial point here (as joyfulgirl said). Please tell me that you can admit that Bush's question is very ignorant and doesn't speak very highly of his world-awareness. This is not about his honesty vs. Clinton's lying or which one we would rather have.

The President of the United States didn't even know that Brazil had a (very large) black population. You find nothing worrisome in that fact? Nevermind what the question implies about Bush's thoughts towards blacks in general...

 

[diamond]

, since its not my purpouse to RULE the world, oposed to Mr. Bush, who, maybe, should be better informed.

.

Raf-
You REALLY dont think that Bush wants to rule the world or Bubba, correct?
God help you if you do..

DB9

 

[rafmed]

Diamond, I'm just trying to state the absurd between trying to compare Bush lack of knowledge with my use of english.

Peace Diamond

 

[diamond]

ya know Diamond, you're an alright guy. See, at least you can admit that "do you have blacks, too?" is an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

Nevermind what the question implies about Bush's thoughts towards blacks in general...

Diemen-
thanks.

Cmon now,President Bush surrounds himself w ppl of color in his cabinet..all of which seem to be smarter -polictically and intellectually then him.:idea:
I think Bush is more 'colored-blind' then we think.
He told Bono in the Oval Office that the "Aids/Africa Crisis is GENOCIDE".
Hardly words from a bigot.

Peace-
Diamond
:idea:

 

[KingPin]

He told Bono in the Oval Office that the "Aids/Africa Crisis is GENOCIDE".
Hardly words from a bigot.

I wonder if he thinks America is even a little bit responsible. I'm betting he doesn't.

 

[diamond]

I wonder if he thinks America is even a little bit responsible. I'm betting he doesn't.

KingPin-
Can you say-5 BILLION DOLLARS?

Plus more to BILLIONS come ??
and
"Bono please come back to the White House updating us"

Peace-

Diamond
:idea:

 

[Rono]

KingPin-
Can you say-5 BILLION DOLLARS?

Plus more to BILLIONS come ??
and
"Bono please come back to the White House updating us"

Peace-

Diamond
:idea:

Better late than never,....

 

[diamond]

Better late than never,....

Indeed

DB9
:idea:

 

[Diemen]

Diemen-
thanks.

Cmon now,President Bush surrounds himself w ppl of color in his cabinet..all of which seem to be smarter -polictically and intellectually then him.:idea:
I think Bush is more 'colored-blind' then we think.
He told Bono in the Oval Office that the "Aids/Africa Crisis is GENOCIDE".
Hardly words from a bigot.

Peace-
Diamond
:idea:

Diamond, I wasn't suggesting that Bush was a bigot, but that he thinks of blacks differently from the rest of the population. I suppose it just could of been boyish curiosity, but it just seems weird to ask that kind of question unless you have a different viewpoint on blacks in general as opposed to the rest of the population.

And surrounding yourself with people of color doesn't really suggest anything to me other than that you want to appeal to the black voting population - at least that's a big part of it.

 

[diamond]

Diamond, I wasn't suggesting that Bush was a bigot, but that he thinks of blacks differently from the rest of the population. I suppose it just could of been boyish curiosity, but it just seems weird to ask that kind of question unless you have a different viewpoint on blacks in general as opposed to the rest of the population.

And surrounding yourself with people of color doesn't really suggest anything to me other than that you want to appeal to the black voting population - at least that's a big part of it.

I sorta agree w the first part..naive is more the word and he should spruce up on that area of demographics ect.

The 2nd paragraph means that you think Condi and Colin would allow themselves to be used..I disagree.

DB9
:idea:

 

[speedracer]

I wonder if he thinks America is even a little bit responsible. I'm betting he doesn't.

Uh, remind me again how America caused AIDS to spread like wildfire in Africa?

 

[z edge]

Bush = MORON.

His numb-skullness has overshadowed even Dan Quayle, a truly great feat. This level of indiocy is rivaled, however, by our own Z Edge, who apparently doesn't share political ideologies or intelligence levels with his name sake.

And you are ?......

Anyway, I would like to thank you or whomever for the kind words. Comparing me to Mr. Quayle and Mr. Bush is in fact a compliment.

I also want to congratulate you on meeting and knowing personally Mr. Quayle, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Evans.

Oh, and me too, though I still can't quite remember you...hmmmm

 

[z edge]

Bush = MORON.

His numb-skullness has overshadowed even Dan Quayle, a truly great feat. This level of indiocy is rivaled, however, by our own Z Edge, who apparently doesn't share political ideologies or intelligence levels with his name sake.

sorry, double post

 

[z edge]

Z Edge, it appears your idea of a response to a challenge is to just laugh as if the other person is wrong. That doesn't cut it in a public forum.

Sorry I didn't realize this was your forum. Or is it?

I mean who are you anyway? "Kingpin"

Other than to instigate trouble so your cronies can complain about our responses, what is your purpose in all of your 100 or so posts?

I believe you to be hiding behind an alter.

Anyway, I guess with your logic I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

How else should I respond to someone who refers to me as

deaf and dumb

calls me coward (at least 5 times in one post)

Not to mention that your thread here is just another re-hash of the same crap shoved down our throats every damn day.

Your whole purpose here is to start trouble, as proven again here in your remarks.

I'm not going to run tell on you like a little sniveling coward, but not only am I calling you out on it I will dish it back to you with a

And I will be watching you just as you are me.

Cheers

 

[anitram]

I don't know what his IQ is, though I don't suspect it's anything out of the average range.

I do, however feel that the man is ignorant when it comes to a number of world affairs, and moreso, I personally don't get the feeling he's particularly bothered by this ignorance. He's always struck me as a kind of happy-go-lucky guy, and therefore the fact he did or did not know who the Taliban was isn't something that was a source of irritation for him.

Oh, and btw, when people are nitpicking others' grammar, please keep in mind not everybody is an anglophone primarily. English is the third language I learned, and though it is one that I speak best, there's always a bad taste in my mouth when I see the grammar police rear their heads in a less than pleasant manner. If you want to teach somebody something, please do it constructively, not meanly.

 

[z edge]

And another thing on the issue of grammar. President Bush is said to have dyslexia, so if you still want to make fun of him for that in a mean-spirited way (calling him ignorant, among others) then that should be dealt with the same way as a if you were making fun of a handicapped child or a retarded person. Not very funny folks. I admit I may chuckle at his speech on the rarest of occasion, in a compassionate way.

And if english is not your first language, then you have NO BUSINESS criticizing Mr. Bush on his speech. Especially if your posts look like that of a 5th grader. I mean would you like it if I were to come and tell you how to pronounce words in your language? And I don't even speak your language? Huh?

Yet another doublestandard that goes on here in the name of jealously.

Peace