Excellent article and it only bolsters the words in books from various former insiders as to Bush's lack of thought and actual discouragement of debate in regards to making policy.
Linden
Senior member
- Dec 7, 2000
- 567
- 0
- 76
Please don't confuse poise and polish with leadership. Were that the case, we would today be studying how Neville Chamberlain was a great leader.
When looking for a car purchase, the amount of chrome and the shine of the paint don't heavily influence my decision. I don't care the precision of the elocution a speaker emits - logic, historicity, and factual consistency are much more important.
hehe. Jim Jones was a dem. Not only that, but if you are so smart can you tell me the link between the Jonestown massacre and 9/11? There actually is one..
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It's not a tactic; it's an observation. It's an expression of frustration and regret that our expectations are so low. If you read the article, you'll note that even supporters and people close to Bush acknowledge he isn't the the sharpest knife in the drawer (or, more appropriately, the most potent WMD in the where ever they are this week). People still don't care that he isn't very bright, and that's a sad commentary on us.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - they tried the "____ is dumb" routine in 1984 with Reagan tooThe tactic didn't get them very far then and it won't get them very far today.
I have full faith in the American people to again see right through these sorts of things.
CkG
Don't try and talk sense to them BF. The wouldn't understand it anyway, look at who they champion.
Yeah :roll: here comes the "we're better than them so don't bother" elitism....
:roll:
CkG
Considering the company, I have no arguments with that assesment.
:roll:
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It's not a tactic; it's an observation. It's an expression of frustration and regret that our expectations are so low. If you read the article, you'll note that even supporters and people close to Bush acknowledge he isn't the the sharpest knife in the drawer (or, more appropriately, the most potent WMD in the where ever they are this week). People still don't care that he isn't very bright, and that's a sad commentary on us.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - they tried the "____ is dumb" routine in 1984 with Reagan too
I have full faith in the American people to again see right through these sorts of things.
CkG
Don't try and talk sense to them BF. The wouldn't understand it anyway, look at who they champion.
Yeah :roll: here comes the "we're better than them so don't bother" elitism....
:roll:
CkG
BAHAHAHA!
Don't even try....
Democrats and Liberals are infact and have proven throughout history to typically have more open-minded beliefs.
Open-mindedness does not logically follow intelligence. You have it all backwords. Look at the demographics of those who vote democratic, then you'll see my point.
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: TechJunkie95242
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It's not a tactic; it's an observation. It's an expression of frustration and regret that our expectations are so low. If you read the article, you'll note that even supporters and people close to Bush acknowledge he isn't the the sharpest knife in the drawer (or, more appropriately, the most potent WMD in the where ever they are this week). People still don't care that he isn't very bright, and that's a sad commentary on us.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hehe - they tried the "____ is dumb" routine in 1984 with Reagan too
I have full faith in the American people to again see right through these sorts of things.
CkG
Don't try and talk sense to them BF. The wouldn't understand it anyway, look at who they champion.
Yeah :roll: here comes the "we're better than them so don't bother" elitism....
:roll:
CkG
BAHAHAHA!
Don't even try....
Democrats and Liberals are infact and have proven throughout history to typically have more open-minded beliefs.
Open-mindedness does not logically follow intelligence. You have it all backwords. Look at the demographics of those who vote democratic, then you'll see my point.
Hmmmm alot of Blacks vote Democratic. And Blacks score lower on IQ tests! You're right!!!!
Zephyr
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, Bush certainly had a chance to be smart. Instead, he chose to be stupid. I'd almost feel sorry for him if he was born that way . . . But now that you mention it, do you disagree? Do you think Bush is a smart guy? I'm not necessarily trying to influence voters in response to your "...tactic has been tried..." rather, I'm trying to understand the mystique that is the Dub.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Sure - in YOUR opinion. That's why we all get to vote. You vote based on YOUR opinion, and I'll vote based on mine. You think Bush is a ranch-wrangling yahoo and I think kerry is a spineless "ask the UN for permission" socialist.
Anyway - this game of continuously calling Bush "dumb" makes me laugh. That tactic has been tried and it failed...but go ahead, run with it
CkG
There is no mystique as far as I'm concerned. I will vote for Bush because he is the lesser of two evils. I will vote for the party that 'says' they want smaller government- the Republicans. I will not vote for the party who has proven over the past 50 years that their ONLY answer is MORE government. I will vote for Bush because he has the stones to take a stand against those cowardly goat-humping punks who hit us on 9-11; and take out that murdering thug Hussein.
I'm a fiscal conservative, with libertarian leanings on some social issues. The Republicans certainly aren't conservative by any stretch; but they come a damned sight closer to the "ideal" than do the Democrats nowadays.
The radical socialist wing has control of the Democrat party now. As demonstrated yesterday, for all of the world to see, effing morons like Carl Levin, Robert "KKK" Byrd and Ted ?bring me another litre of scotch? Kennedy are willing to run this country into the ground all for their own aggrandizement. These blood-sucking pimps are so desperate to regain power that they have lost all decorum and made me sad to be an American.
It?s a shame the Dems didn?t nominate the only decent, and I think honorable candidate they had- Joe Lieberman.
I will hold my nose when I vote this year, but I will vote for the party who at least pays lip service to the idea of smaller government, and who is not afraid to take out sh*t-heads like Hussein.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
That's a nice rant. It's a shame you don't see how disconnected it is from reality.
For example, you say you admire Bush because he "has the stones to take a stand against those cowardly goat-humping punks who hit us on 9-11." Unfortunately, those "goat-humping punks" were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. By detouring into Iraq, Bush undermined our ability to aggressively and successfully pursue bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Once he started beating the drums for Iraq, Bush even stopped referring to bin Laden, effectively reducing pressure on him. Now, 2 1/2 years later, we still don't have bin Laden. We do have hundreds of dead Americans, thousands of dead Iraqis, $200 billion in reckless spending, alienated former allies, and an inflamed Arab world providing hundreds of new recruits for terror against the western infidels.
Way to go, George! Bring 'em on!!! :roll:
You also claim you "will not vote for the party who has proven over the past 50 years that their ONLY answer is MORE government." You also claim you will vote for Republican Bush. The two comments are contradictory. Both parties have shown an insatiable appetite for expanding government.
Yes, the Republicans claim to be for smaller government, but the facts prove otherwise. Only the most gullible and the blindly partisan believe it. In essence, you're saying you support Republicans because they lie to you, because they tell you what you want to hear. That's not a healthy approach to picking leaders.
The problem is professional politicians lust for power; once they have it, they want to increase it. Politicians don't increase their power by reducing government. If you truly want smaller government, your best option is Libertarian. Unfortunately. if Libertarians ever become a majority party, they'll start discovering their hunger for bigger government too.
Welcome to the real world. The best you can do is consistently vote against the status quo. Vote against incumbents. Vote for the party that does NOT control Congress. Put politicians on notice that we are not satisfied with their abysmal performance. Raise the bar. Demand leaders instead of whores. When you rubber stamp the scoundrels in office, you only encourage them to screw us harder.
By "holding your nose" and voting for Bush, you tell the RNC it's OK to keep selecting malleable puppets like Bush. If that's what you want for the Republican Party, more power to you. If you want change, you'll only get it by voting against him.
.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
And holding your nose and voting for the Democrat's candidate you're telling the DNC it's OK to keep selecting big gov't socialists who has to ask the world before making a decision(and even then he might change his mind or not go with them - remember the first gulf war vote
)So yeah - more power to ya.:roll:
CkG
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's a nice rant. It's a shame you don't see how disconnected it is from reality.
For example, you say you admire Bush because he "has the stones to take a stand against those cowardly goat-humping punks who hit us on 9-11." Unfortunately, those "goat-humping punks" were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. By detouring into Iraq, Bush undermined our ability to aggressively and successfully pursue bin Laden and al-Qaida.
I'm sorry, when did we leave Afghanistan? My cousin is there right now looking for that turd-knocker. So what?s your point? How has it undermined our ability to pursue bin Laden? Do you think if we showed up with 500,000 troops in Afghanistan that the Afghan mountains would somehow magically crap him out because of overwhelming numerical superiority?
We are doing what is correct and proper in Afghanistan. We have partnered with the Afghani?s to find him. They know the country and the people better than we ever will.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Once he started beating the drums for Iraq, Bush even stopped referring to bin Laden, effectively reducing pressure on him.
So because Bush stopped talking about him incessantly before the press, we still aren?t trying to pursue him? Gee where did you come by that info? Wow, you?re one to talk about cognitive dissonance.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Now, 2 1/2 years later, we still don't have bin Laden. We do have hundreds of dead Americans, thousands of dead Iraqis, $200 billion in reckless spending, alienated former allies, and an inflamed Arab world providing hundreds of new recruits for terror against the western infidels.
Way to go, George! Bring 'em on!!! :roll:
You know, I think the reason that a lot of Americans who are opposed to this war are simply afraid to face the inevitable. One way or another will we have to fight these a**holes. What?s the difference between now and 5 years down the road? Does it take getting hit again like we did on 9-11 for some of you people to understand that you can?t play nice, you can?t negotiate, and you can?t reason with terrorists. The only thing they understand, fear, and respect is brute force. I?m not an internationalist, but I?m sure as hell not an isolationist either. Some things you cannot avoid.
Being a member of an international terrorist group has some similarities to being a drug kingpin, or mafia boss. (no, I?m not saying drug dealers or Mafioso types are terrorists). If you?re a drug dealer you know guys who can get you the best weed, or the best coke, or the best meth. As history has proven, organized crime bosses are all too familiar with competing families or organizations.
They run in the same circles, and they have the same acquaintances. It?s an underworld society which is numerically small in size, and familiar by its very nature. In this respect, terror groups are no different. People know people in the underworld.
The big difference between terrorist groups and the aforementioned groups are that Islamic terrorist groups are not generally for-profit entities. (Lest you count the for-profit imbeciles who attempt to suicide-bombed their relatives out of the gutter).
Thus, the only thing driving Islamic terrorist groups is power, hatred of America, and a COMMON ideal- radical Islamic fundamentalism. Do you posit that Saddamn had no connections to international terrorism? That?s like saying a bear doesn?t fart in the woods. To say that there exists no possibility that terror groups or terror leaders have no affiliation, and do not assist each other is both preposterous and schizophrenic.
Saddamn is/was a murdering bastard. He violated sanction after sanction with impunity. He sponsored terrorism and he had links to Al Queda. According to the UN, Germany, France, and the U.S. he had WMD. He had the will and intent to produce them. The world is a better place without that pig-eyed sack of sh*t..
As for ?former allies?- I think that?s a bit of wishful chicken-little hyperbole.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You also claim you "will not vote for the party who has proven over the past 50 years that their ONLY answer is MORE government." You also claim you will vote for Republican Bush. The two comments are contradictory. Both parties have shown an insatiable appetite for expanding government.
Those two comments are not contradictory. I thought I made it plain that I know Republicans are not hell-bent on bringing us smaller government- at least not like they used to. OTOH, when is the last time that the Democrats have offered or actually given us a tax break? I think you have to go back to the era of the real ?JFK? to find that happening.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, the Republicans claim to be for smaller government, but the facts prove otherwise. Only the most gullible and the blindly partisan believe it. In essence, you're saying you support Republicans because they lie to you, because they tell you what you want to hear. That's not a healthy approach to picking leaders.
See above.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The problem is professional politicians lust for power; once they have it, they want to increase it. Politicians don't increase their power by reducing government. If you truly want smaller government, your best option is Libertarian. Unfortunately. if Libertarians ever become a majority party, they'll start discovering their hunger for bigger government too.
I agree that politicians are in large part money/power whores. However, the libertarians don?t have the organization to do anything about it, and I refuse to throw away my vote again. I did that once when I voted for Perot. What I got in return was that goofy-a$$ from Arkansas.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Welcome to the real world. The best you can do is consistently vote against the status quo. Vote against incumbents. Vote for the party that does NOT control Congress. Put politicians on notice that we are not satisfied with their abysmal performance. Raise the bar. Demand leaders instead of whores. When you rubber stamp the scoundrels in office, you only encourage them to screw us harder.
By "holding your nose" and voting for Bush, you tell the RNC it's OK to keep selecting malleable puppets like Bush. If that's what you want for the Republican Party, more power to you. If you want change, you'll only get it by voting against him.
Au contraire. If I vote against him, I assure myself of an increased likelihood that my taxes will go up and I won?t get a damn thing in return except higher taxes and more useless social programs. If I vote against him, I can be assured that Kerry (should he win), will go buns-up-and-kneeling to Kofi Annan, France, and Germany looking for charity from an organization (the UN) that we largely prop up.
I can be assured that Kerry will go play kissy-kissy with that little toad Jacque Chirac and his crony in Germany who can never clean up their own damn messes (see Bosnia and UN food for oil); and then piss and moan when we offer to fix a problem in spite of them.
Jesus, I?m glad this generation wasn?t alive yet when we fought WWII. Were that the case, we?d be doing the lock-step boogie with Adolf, and wearing lampshades for hats.
Nice try.
That's a nice rant. It's a shame you don't see how disconnected it is from reality.
For example, you say you admire Bush because he "has the stones to take a stand against those cowardly goat-humping punks who hit us on 9-11." Unfortunately, those "goat-humping punks" were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. By detouring into Iraq, Bush undermined our ability to aggressively and successfully pursue bin Laden and al-Qaida.
I'm sorry, when did we leave Afghanistan? My cousin is there right now looking for that turd-knocker. So what?s your point? How has it undermined our ability to pursue bin Laden? Do you think if we showed up with 500,000 troops in Afghanistan that the Afghan mountains would somehow magically crap him out because of overwhelming numerical superiority?
We are doing what is correct and proper in Afghanistan. We have partnered with the Afghani?s to find him. They know the country and the people better than we ever will.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Once he started beating the drums for Iraq, Bush even stopped referring to bin Laden, effectively reducing pressure on him.
So because Bush stopped talking about him incessantly before the press, we still aren?t trying to pursue him? Gee where did you come by that info? Wow, you?re one to talk about cognitive dissonance.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Now, 2 1/2 years later, we still don't have bin Laden. We do have hundreds of dead Americans, thousands of dead Iraqis, $200 billion in reckless spending, alienated former allies, and an inflamed Arab world providing hundreds of new recruits for terror against the western infidels.
Way to go, George! Bring 'em on!!! :roll:
You know, I think the reason that a lot of Americans who are opposed to this war are simply afraid to face the inevitable. One way or another will we have to fight these a**holes. What?s the difference between now and 5 years down the road? Does it take getting hit again like we did on 9-11 for some of you people to understand that you can?t play nice, you can?t negotiate, and you can?t reason with terrorists. The only thing they understand, fear, and respect is brute force. I?m not an internationalist, but I?m sure as hell not an isolationist either. Some things you cannot avoid.
Being a member of an international terrorist group has some similarities to being a drug kingpin, or mafia boss. (no, I?m not saying drug dealers or Mafioso types are terrorists). If you?re a drug dealer you know guys who can get you the best weed, or the best coke, or the best meth. As history has proven, organized crime bosses are all too familiar with competing families or organizations.
They run in the same circles, and they have the same acquaintances. It?s an underworld society which is numerically small in size, and familiar by its very nature. In this respect, terror groups are no different. People know people in the underworld.
The big difference between terrorist groups and the aforementioned groups are that Islamic terrorist groups are not generally for-profit entities. (Lest you count the for-profit imbeciles who attempt to suicide-bombed their relatives out of the gutter).
Thus, the only thing driving Islamic terrorist groups is power, hatred of America, and a COMMON ideal- radical Islamic fundamentalism. Do you posit that Saddamn had no connections to international terrorism? That?s like saying a bear doesn?t fart in the woods. To say that there exists no possibility that terror groups or terror leaders have no affiliation, and do not assist each other is both preposterous and schizophrenic.
Saddamn is/was a murdering bastard. He violated sanction after sanction with impunity. He sponsored terrorism and he had links to Al Queda. According to the UN, Germany, France, and the U.S. he had WMD. He had the will and intent to produce them. The world is a better place without that pig-eyed sack of sh*t..
As for ?former allies?- I think that?s a bit of wishful chicken-little hyperbole.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You also claim you "will not vote for the party who has proven over the past 50 years that their ONLY answer is MORE government." You also claim you will vote for Republican Bush. The two comments are contradictory. Both parties have shown an insatiable appetite for expanding government.
Those two comments are not contradictory. I thought I made it plain that I know Republicans are not hell-bent on bringing us smaller government- at least not like they used to. OTOH, when is the last time that the Democrats have offered or actually given us a tax break? I think you have to go back to the era of the real ?JFK? to find that happening.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, the Republicans claim to be for smaller government, but the facts prove otherwise. Only the most gullible and the blindly partisan believe it. In essence, you're saying you support Republicans because they lie to you, because they tell you what you want to hear. That's not a healthy approach to picking leaders.
See above.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
The problem is professional politicians lust for power; once they have it, they want to increase it. Politicians don't increase their power by reducing government. If you truly want smaller government, your best option is Libertarian. Unfortunately. if Libertarians ever become a majority party, they'll start discovering their hunger for bigger government too.
I agree that politicians are in large part money/power whores. However, the libertarians don?t have the organization to do anything about it, and I refuse to throw away my vote again. I did that once when I voted for Perot. What I got in return was that goofy-a$$ from Arkansas.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Welcome to the real world. The best you can do is consistently vote against the status quo. Vote against incumbents. Vote for the party that does NOT control Congress. Put politicians on notice that we are not satisfied with their abysmal performance. Raise the bar. Demand leaders instead of whores. When you rubber stamp the scoundrels in office, you only encourage them to screw us harder.
By "holding your nose" and voting for Bush, you tell the RNC it's OK to keep selecting malleable puppets like Bush. If that's what you want for the Republican Party, more power to you. If you want change, you'll only get it by voting against him.
Au contraire. If I vote against him, I assure myself of an increased likelihood that my taxes will go up and I won?t get a damn thing in return except higher taxes and more useless social programs. If I vote against him, I can be assured that Kerry (should he win), will go buns-up-and-kneeling to Kofi Annan, France, and Germany looking for charity from an organization (the UN) that we largely prop up.
I can be assured that Kerry will go play kissy-kissy with that little toad Jacque Chirac and his crony in Germany who can never clean up their own damn messes (see Bosnia and UN food for oil); and then piss and moan when we offer to fix a problem in spite of them.
Jesus, I?m glad this generation wasn?t alive yet when we fought WWII. Were that the case, we?d be doing the lock-step boogie with Adolf, and wearing lampshades for hats.
Nice try.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And holding your nose and voting for the Democrat's candidate you're telling the DNC it's OK to keep selecting big gov't socialists who has to ask the world before making a decision(and even then he might change his mind or not go with them - remember the first gulf war vote
So yeah - more power to ya.:roll:
CkG
Kerry won't be able to run roughshod over America as Bush has. The Republican-controlled Congress will temper any social programs.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And holding your nose and voting for the Democrat's candidate you're telling the DNC it's OK to keep selecting big gov't socialists who has to ask the world before making a decision(and even then he might change his mind or not go with them - remember the first gulf war vote
So yeah - more power to ya.:roll:
CkG
Kerry won't be able to run roughshod over America as Bush has. The Republican-controlled Congress will temper any social programs.
So what exactly was "rammed" onto the American people by Bush? Don't bring up the Medicare bill either - the democrats supposedly wanted MORE than it so it wasn't rammed onto the American people. Education bill was written by 'Ol swimmer. Patriot Act? Hmmm...what was the vote on that again?
Got anything bullets that fire? or are they all duds?
Anyway, you are free to hold your nose and vote for a spineless socialist if you wish.
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And holding your nose and voting for the Democrat's candidate you're telling the DNC it's OK to keep selecting big gov't socialists who has to ask the world before making a decision(and even then he might change his mind or not go with them - remember the first gulf war vote
So yeah - more power to ya.:roll:
CkG
Kerry won't be able to run roughshod over America as Bush has. The Republican-controlled Congress will temper any social programs.
So what exactly was "rammed" onto the American people by Bush? Don't bring up the Medicare bill either - the democrats supposedly wanted MORE than it so it wasn't rammed onto the American people. Education bill was written by 'Ol swimmer. Patriot Act? Hmmm...what was the vote on that again?
Got anything bullets that fire? or are they all duds?
Anyway, you are free to hold your nose and vote for a spineless socialist if you wish.
CkG
I hope you weren't calling Kerry spineless... Just look at your man you will vote for. He is plenty happy sending OTHER PEOPLE off to war and to die for a unnecessary war, but when HE is excepted to go he tucks his tail inbetween his legs and runs.
lol it's funny how some of the trolling leftist morons who post nothing but the same whiny partisan rhetoric nonstop can try to call anyone dumb and accuse them of not making rational decisions. WAAH WAAH I HATE BUSH!!! WAAAAH WAAAH!!!
Apparently you don't have a good grasp of "history" either...spear-chucker is a highly derogatory slang term identical to the "N" word. Your saying Bush junior was Pappy Bush's n.....? That's terrible, that's racist. Go wash your mouth out with soap.
lol it's funny how some of the trolling neocon morons who post nothing but the same whiny partisan rhetoric nonstop can try to call anyone dumb and accuse them of not making rational decisions. WAAH WAAH I HATE KERRY!!! WAAAAH WAAAH!!!
Happy 10th birthday, here is a cookie.
:roll:
What Republican President HAVEN'T the democrats tried to call stupid in the past 25 years? They even try to use Reagan's disease to discredit him to this day. They can't argue on issues and results, because they will lose.. so they will fall back on the "Yeah, but he's dumb" argument. Seems like the democrats are the stupid ones who can't figure out how to keep these 'dumb' Republican Presidents out of office.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter