about Bush's intelligence, some questions have arisen

[West]

Word is he's kinda dumb.

[Utah]

Word is that you need to be a little smart to fly fighter planes, graduate from Yale, and get a Harvard MBA.

[West]

Word is, not if your last name is Bush.

[cardcounter0]

Do you have any proof or evidence that Bush's last name is really Bush?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Word is that you need to be a little smart to fly fighter planes, graduate from Yale, and get a Harvard MBA.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a "little smart" is what he is. I think Bush and Kerry are both above average in intelligence, but neither is exceptionally bright. Neither is exceptionally articulate either, but that's harder to tell with Kerry, since he never says anything, he just talks.

That is not to say that genius necessarily makes for a good leader. Jimmy Carter was probably the most intelligent president in recent history, and the worst leader. The problem with both of them is a lack of common sense, and a lack of leadership in the best sense of the word. Leadership isn't about getting people to do what you want, it's getting them to work together for the common good. Neither Bush nor Kerry impresses me in this area. Bush wanted to be president because his dad was, and he thought it would be fun. Unfortunately, stuff happened and Bush was in way over his head. Kerry, like Gore before him, wants to be president because he thinks that the majority of people are incapable of deciding how to live their lives, and they need his superior thinking to straighten them out.

Sigh! I think I'll go visit the Libertarian web page, see if they have anything to offer.

[Utah]

Well said. I think Bush (and Kerry) have the required minimum level of intelligence. I agree with your other points as well.

Where are you in MN? I am Next to Bear Path in Eden Prairie - about 10 minutes from Canterbury.

btw - I used to work directly for Ted Mondale - now there is a guy without the required level of intelligence.

[cardcounter0]

Do you have any facts or evidence of what this required minimum level of intelligence is?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Well said. I think Bush (and Kerry) have the required minimum level of intelligence. I agree with your other points as well.

Where are you in MN? I am Next to Bear Path in Eden Prairie - about 10 minutes from Canterbury.

btw - I used to work directly for Ted Mondale - now there is a guy without the required level of intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in Apple Valley. Recently moved back to Minnesota, and haven't gotten out to Canterbury yet.

I'll see your Ted Mondale, and raise you a Mark Dayton. He was in state government when I worked for the state many years ago, and we had some common issues we worked with. Talk about an empty suit. The guy was clueless then, and is really dangerous now as a Senator. He could be the poster child for the Warren Buffett theory of inheritence: give your money to charity and let your children work for a living.

[cardcounter0]

Do you have any proof or evidence of this APPLE VALLEY you say you live in. I have heard some Vets state that it is not a valley, and there are no apples.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any proof or evidence of this ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Little kids will some times say something that gets a laugh, and then they repeat it over and over. After a couple times, it is not funny any more. After they say it enough times, the words become meaningless gibberish.

[cardcounter0]

I see you choose to side step the issue by bringing off topic data on the behavior of children. Apple Valley is a huge liberal lie.

[Toro]

Bravo Cardcounter. Keep saying it until they get the point which they obviously haven't.

[Utah]

"I'll see your Ted Mondale, and raise you a Mark Dayton"

Thats awesome. Isnt it scary that such dumb people get into position to make very important decisions about the future of our state and/or country.

[West]

I don't even know who Ted Mondale or Mark Dayton are, but I see both your raises and go all in with Dubya. SHIP IT OVER HERE!

[Utah]

Ted Mondale is the son of Walter Mondale. He ran his father's senate run when Wellstone died. He was so brilliant that he decided not to vet the speeches at the Wellstone memorial. Those speeches caused a huge democrat bachlash and his father was defeated. If you recall, his father was the Vice President of the U.S.

Mark Dayton is an heir to the Dayton Department Store fortune. Never really accomplished much in his life until he became senator.

[Jimbo]

The link below provides a fair and objective analysis of our President's comparative level of intelligence.

UPI article (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-074349-3947r)

Jimbo

[whiskeytown]

word is you need a lot of Daddy's money and influence to get into Yale with the grades he got and into the National Guard with a war going on -not to mention give you some companies like Harkin that you can run into the ground with that MBA of his.

RB

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Word is that you need to be a little smart to fly fighter planes, graduate from Yale, and get a Harvard MBA.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a "little smart" is what he is. I think Bush and Kerry are both above average in intelligence, but neither is exceptionally bright. Neither is exceptionally articulate either, but that's harder to tell with Kerry, since he never says anything, he just talks.

That is not to say that genius necessarily makes for a good leader. Jimmy Carter was probably the most intelligent president in recent history, and the worst leader. The problem with both of them is a lack of common sense, and a lack of leadership in the best sense of the word. Leadership isn't about getting people to do what you want, it's getting them to work together for the common good. Neither Bush nor Kerry impresses me in this area. Bush wanted to be president because his dad was, and he thought it would be fun. Unfortunately, stuff happened and Bush was in way over his head. Kerry, like Gore before him, wants to be president because he thinks that the majority of people are incapable of deciding how to live their lives, and they need his superior thinking to straighten them out.

Sigh! I think I'll go visit the Libertarian web page, see if they have anything to offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had some good points with Carter and leadership. I also think you underestimate the rigors of Harvard and Yale. They both are definitely above average. Your correct in pointing out Carter, as he, Einstein, and Watson are perfect examples of specialization. Ussually the better you are at one thing the worse you become at all other subjects. Only a select few can be multi-talented.

As for being a leader, it is obvious that Bush has not been a uniform leader of this country. In fact, he has been one of the worst uniform leaders in the recent US history as the country is very polarized right now. Then again it was polarized under Clinton, not as much, but still polarized.

But according to Machiavelli there are other aspects of being a good leader. One of which is appointing good council and listening to them and few others. Almost all successful leaders in the history of man kind have done this. By that token, if you think Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and the rest of the administration are good council, then by that token Bush is a good leader as he has listened to them. They have definitely proven themselves in the past to prove that they are capable. If you don't like Rice, Powell, and Rumsfeld, then you can consider Bush a bad leader.

Also Bush sticks to his guns. Which is a very admirable trait. Against much criticism he has done and fought for what he believe is right. Regardless of if you agree with him, you cannot deny this. You may think he is too religious, and evil, but he has undeniably stuck to his beliefs in Iraq, Gay marriage, and numerous other topics.
That is also a trait of a good leader. Other leaders have not done this. Past leaders have turned their backs on Europe post WWI, the middle east post WWI and WWII, Afghanistan and Osama, after fighting the Russians, Iraq in the 80's and 90's, and countless other situations. Bush is not doing that, and ironically enough many people are using this as a weapon against him. If we abandon Iraq now, it could have very serious implications in the future.

On the other hand, according to Machiavelli, it is better to be feared then loved, but never hated. Bush is a very hated person, by a significant portion of the population and even the world. Even if their hate is founded from good, bad, or even rediculously stupid reasons, this is not a good situation to be in.

You don't have to be smart to be a good leader. You just need good council and the ability to identify good ideas from the bad, and then act on them. That's it.



Please note, that I tried very hard in the above not to state my opinions at any point in time, and only used historically proven philosophy to analyze Bush as a leader.

My Opinion: There are many things that I strongly disagree with Bush on. I.E. stem cell research, amending the constitution, and a few other areas. But at the same time, I don't understand why so many people, like Michael Moore, have to make things up to criticize him when you don't need to. There is plenty of ammo already. And I am very disappointed they decided to play it at the DNC. I think vast majority of arguements against Bush, and even some against Kerry in the case of the Swift Boat Vets, are completely fabricated. Or the arguements are completely invalid based on historical lessons, but appeal to the emotions. None of this has to be the case. Both candidates already have tons of faults. I just hope one day the average human will be smart enough not to make Michael Moore, Ann Coulter and all of their kind multi-millionares.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The link below provides a fair and objective analysis of our President's comparative level of intelligence.

UPI article (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-074349-3947r)

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent Link Jimbo

[West]

The thing about Bush - it's not just that he has trouble articulating, and speaks bad english. He frequently says things that flat out don't make sense. He frequently misspeaks and says the opposite of what he means. He invents words. He speaks words out of order. Honestly, it seems like he doesn't hear his own words much of the time. Forget about the constant stream of idealogical stupidity, lies and bs coming out of his mouth, the third grade logic he often uses, the immature smirks, inappropriate jokes, etc etc - I don't know if it's past drug abuse, alcohol, or some kind of disability, but I don't think all of the man's synapses are firing right, if you get my drift.

I remember looong before the Bush/Gore election fiasco, when Bush was early in his candidacy, a friend of mine was giving me his early impression of Bush. "Here's the thing", he said, "whoever is President, I need to believe that they are at least as smart as I am. And I KNOW I'm smarter than Bush." I didn't care much about politics, and hadn't even seen Bush yet. Little did I know how right he was...

food (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/foodonfamily.mp3)

hostile (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/hostile.mp3)

subliminabable (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/sublimibabble2.mp3)

a buildings (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/abuildings.mp3)

forgot World War II (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/moderntimes.mp3)

um uh er (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/4000hours.mp3)

words of wisdom (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/foolmeonce.mp3)

WMPs (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/massproduction.mp3)

huh? (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/everysingle.mp3)

threats (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/threats.mp3)

hurdles (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/hurdles.mp3)

modesty (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/modesty.mp3)

incarcerated? (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/incarsinated.mp3)

chaos (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/chaos.mp3)

conflict harm (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/conflictharm.mp3)

brain damage? (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/peeance.mp3)

tough weeks (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/toughweeks.mp3)

Secretaries of State (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/secretaries.mp3)

Iraqis? (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/iraqs.mp3)

showing off that Ivy League vocabulary again (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/exemplorary.mp3)

AIDS addiction (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/addiction.mp3)

dumb@ss (http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/harmcountry.mp3)


"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."

[vulturesrow]

whats so cosmic about the fact that the guy isnt a great public speaker. Hardly grounds for not being a suitable president.

[wacki]

West, I thank you for posting you last post. Alot of people, especially liberals/anti-bush people (even including you), tend to use emotional arguements, insults, and name calling in their posts. Your post is actually usefull, and contains links to hard evidence/data. Unlike your previous posts in this thread, it is the kind of post I can respect. I commend you on taking the time to actually do the research and post hard data.

I will not deny that Bush is very very good at looking like a dumbass. He has an accent, a dialect, and has on multiple occasions mispoke. One concept I find that a vast majority of people fail to either understand or implement to keep their emotions in check, is that you have to judge a man by his actions.

It never ceases to amaze me how often a very beautifull girl falls in love with an a$$hole just because he knows what to say to her. He can hit her, abuse her, cheat on her and put her in risk of contracting a disease, and even neglect her. But as long as he says the right stuff at the right times she will be in love with him. I have also seen successful people who are fun, kind, caring, good looking, and even wealthy do relatively poorly with women just because they aren't as "smooth". This obviously changes as you get older, but it sure does take alot of women, and even men, a long time to learn the right lessons.

I see similar occurances in politics. I constantly run into people who hate Bush, but can not give me examples of things he has done, decisions he has made to tell me why they hate him. I watched people see him speak, and then instantly say "I hate him" but when I question why they said that they can't give me a good reason why. It's more often then not, he's too religious, he can't say nuclear, etc. Yet I ask him what has he done, decision wise that is wrong, and I get into a circular discussion. The same lessons of dating seem to be forgotten.

Occasionally I get into "He lied about WMD's" Then I have to show them Clinton's and Gore's own words (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm) , the 9/11 report, etc.

Then it goes into emotional arguements about being a bully to the world. Then it basically turns into a history lesson of the last 100 years, and then asking them "Knowing what we knew then, not what we know now, but then. What would you do?". Which almost always gets a "I don't know.". But that is another topic of debate.

My point is, most people don't know enough about history, economics, etc. Most people vote for candidates just because they like them or they don't like another. Mark Twain made a comment on this saying that being in a democracy full of ignorant voters is no better off than being in a dictatorship. I tend to agree with him in that most voters are too ignorant to make an educated and calculated vote. I even considered myself too ignorant to vote in the last election which is why I didn't vote last time, but I'm definitely voting this time.

You cannot judge a leader by emotions. This will mislead you much like it does a many young women who are in "love". I think of it as no small coincidence that Ronald Reagan was known both as the "Great communitor" and the "Teflon President". The same goes for other presidents like Clinton. A couple of weeks ago my own mother kept on going on about how wonderful Clinton's "Send Kerry" speech was at the DNC. I asked her "Well what did he say?" she responded "Well he kept on saying Send Kerry". In otherwords, she had learned nothing from his speech other than "Send Kerry".

Try as much as I could, I could not get that abuse prone behavior out of my own mother. She said she understood what I was saying, but she kept on going on about how nice the speech was. And she is not a dumb person.

Bush, on the other hand, is at the opposite end of the spectrum. He talks in a way that makes people hate him just like Clinton and Reagan can make people like them. Bush has anti-charisma.

Just because you mispeak doesn't mean you are dumb. Kerry mispeaks, although not nearly as often as Bush does. Bush's accent makes him sound ignorant. Neither are dumb. You cannot judge a leader by this. What matters is, can he get the job done.

I don't care if Clinton wore makeup, a dress, and sounded retarded. If he made good decisions, and got the job done, then that is all that matters. Having a smooth talking president on TV won't improve the mess in the middle east, or put money in my wallet. Good decisions will.

Yes, Bush can sound like a dumbass. Big deal so do I, I misspeak and stutter all the time, but I am not a dumb person either. Einstein and Jack Welch had similer speech problems also. Einstein's teachers actually thought he was retarded. Again, so what. The real question is can he get the job that you want done done. You look at his recent past performance, 5-10 years is good, and then decide. Nothing else matters.

If the answer to this question is yes, then vote Bush. If the answer is no, then you have to ask yourself can Kerry do it? If that answer is no, then you have to ask yourself who has accomplished more, and made better decisions in his recent past. Vote by that, and nothing else.

Also, calling a leader stupid may grab peoples attention and make for interesting talk. But unless if you can back it up by describing the decisions he's made while in office, you are only encouraging everyone else around you to make a emotional and most often incorrect decision.

I apologize for any mispellings.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
whats so cosmic about the fact that the guy isnt a great public speaker. Hardly grounds for not being a suitable president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything that I wrote collapsed into 2 sentences. Either your brilliant, or I'm really dumb.

[West]

Not a great public speaker? Don't you think that's putting it mildly?

There are plenty of other grounds for him not being a suitable President (starting with how he "won" the presidency in the first place) being a buffoon is just one of them.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of other grounds for him not being a suitable President (starting with how he "won" the presidency in the first place)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh, the truth surfaces. Another Democrat unhappy with the 2000 election results who just doesn't understand our form of government. Why not just say it, you don't care whether President Bush is smarter than you or if he is making either good or poor decisions. You just think he took your candy on the playground and got away with it.

Jimbo

[West]

Bush did lie about WMDs. Please. I did not bother reading that article on the PNAC website, just as I would not bother reading a link to Ann Coulter (unless it was short). You want to quote something from there, make it easier for me to read, knock yourself out.

I honestly, seriously doubt that Bush really makes any important decisions himself. I think President Cheney handles the important decisions. Yes, I really do believe that.

My answer to Bush is 1) He stole the job in the first place, and 2) He most definitely is NOT getting the job done, the job I personally want done, to answer the question in the way you framed it.

I am encouraging people to realize what an embarrassment Bush is in representing our country, and hopefully there is a chance that if they don't vote him out because of the lying piece of $#@! shill for the rich that he is, maybe someone will at least decide that they can't vote for a clown to be President.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush did lie about WMDs. Please. I did not bother reading that article on the PNAC website, just as I would not bother reading a link to Ann Coulter (unless it was short). You want to quote something from there, make it easier for me to read, knock yourself out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just cant believe how wedded people are to this idea that Bush lied about WMD. If Bush lied then you need to lump a lot of other world leaders in with him and our previous administration.

[ QUOTE ]
honestly, seriously doubt that Bush really makes any important decisions himself. I think President Cheney handles the important decisions. Yes, I really do believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow conspiracy theory at its finest. Obviously there is no way to really prove or disprove that.

[ QUOTE ]
My answer to Bush is 1) He stole the job in the first place, and 2) He most definitely is NOT getting the job done, the job I personally want done, to answer the question in the way you framed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if Gore had been able to win his home state Florida wouldve been a non-issue..how many battleground states besides Florida went to Bush? Only in the recounts most favorable recount scenarios for Gore had him winning. Its sad that so many Dems and others still cant get over the fact of Bush winning the presidency in the first place.
If you dont think Bush is getting the jumb done, fine? But arguments like "Bush is dumb" are ridiculous and pointless.

[ QUOTE ]
I am encouraging people to realize what an embarrassment Bush is in representing our country, and hopefully there is a chance that if they don't vote him out because of the lying piece of $#@! shill for the rich that he is, maybe someone will at least decide that they can't vote for a clown to be President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another typical refuge of arguing non-issues, "Bush is a shill for the rich". I didnt know the rich were voting bloc. Guess how many of the top ten richest Congressmen are Dems. How about Soros? Is Bush a shill for Soros too?

I for one am quite satisfied with how Bush has represented the country. He showed the world that we arent a paper tiger and that we arent afraid to take action when no one else has the fortitude to take it. Those are attributes that most Americans used to be proud of.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard to use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic or cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level of "openness to experience."



[/ QUOTE ]

This is my biggest problem and the reason I'll not vote for him again.

[NotReady]

You want a president or a poet to run the country?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I just cant believe how wedded people are to this idea that Bush lied about WMD. If Bush lied then you need to lump a lot of other world leaders in with him and our previous administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe that people are still trying to pretend that he didn't lie about WMDs. Of course other world leaders and other administrations have told lies. But this particular lie was the justification for taking us to war.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe if Gore had been able to win his home state Florida wouldve been a non-issue..how many battleground states besides Florida went to Bush? Only in the recounts most favorable recount scenarios for Gore had him winning. Its sad that so many Dems and others still cant get over the fact of Bush winning the presidency in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're interested (and you may very well not be), here are some links for you explaining the myriad reasons why Bush was able to steal Florida and the election:

voter purges (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010430&c=7&s=lantigua)

read beyond the misleading headline (http://www.latimes.com/la-111201recount.story)

great link about various Florida ballots (http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/FL2000.htm)

must read (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&c=1&s=bugliosi)

more (http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Bush_v_Gore.htm)


[ QUOTE ]
Another typical refuge of arguing non-issues, "Bush is a shill for the rich". I didnt know the rich were voting bloc. Guess how many of the top ten richest Congressmen are Dems. How about Soros? Is Bush a shill for Soros too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Bush's tax policies are a non issue. Same with his environmental policies. Blacks are a voting block. Do all blacks vote the same? Do all hispanics? Neither do all rich people.

[ QUOTE ]
I for one am quite satisfied with how Bush has represented the country. He showed the world that we arent a paper tiger and that we arent afraid to take action when no one else has the fortitude to take it. Those are attributes that most Americans used to be proud of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got to tell you, that is one simplistic ass viewpoint you've got there.

Is it that no one else has the fortitude to take action, or is it that no one else has both the power and the lack of morality to take it?

[Jimbo]

You posted 4 links of dis-information from biased leftwing sources. The one unbiased source you used starts with this:

[ QUOTE ]
If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet you still believe what suits your taste rather than the published truth. And the Deomcrats wonder why they are shunned by the majority of free-thinkers. Remarkable!

Jimbo

[West]

I'm sorry, what you mean to say is, there was only one link that says anything that supports the position you prefer - that Bush won. The statement you quote is only true because Gore's legal team only requested that undervotes be recounted. Whatever the reasons for this, it doesn't change the fact that many overvotes were thrown out where the voter intent could easily be determined. It doesn't change how Bush benefitted from retarded ballot designs. It doesn't change the amazing facts regarding the intentional purging of many legal voters from the voter rolls. The published truth?? Hey, I can't make you read what you don't want to.

another link for you (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=palast)

[Jimbo]

You keep misssing a key point. The recount counted all legal votes. Wash, rinse and repeat untill you understand the difference. All legal votes. All legal votes. All legal votes.

Jimbo

[West]

bullshit

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
bullshit

[/ QUOTE ]

Consise and to the point, more useful than all your other posts combined.

Remenber this from the article you linked to at the La Times?

[ QUOTE ]
If the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed Florida's courts to finish their abortive recount of last year's deadlocked presidential election, President Bush probably still would have won by several hundred votes, a comprehensive study of the uncounted ballots has found.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jimbo

[CORed]

"Stupid is as stupid does." Enough said.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
"Bush did lie about WMDs. Please. I did not bother reading that article on the PNAC website,"

[/ QUOTE ]

This one sentence has made me lose all respect for you. One of your posts actually had me convinced that you were a intelligent human being capable of controlling irrational and emotional thought. I guess I was wrong.

Also, this is not was I would consider an article. It is a list of 47 quotes of the Clinton administration. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm) If you can't even find the time to read that list to see if Bush really lied, then I am wasting my time talking to you.

"The man who doesn't read has no advantage over the man who can't read." -- Mark Twain

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
another link for you

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is one for you. This is a link (http://www.johnrlott.com/Lott_on_Fla_2000_Elec.pdf) to a study published in the Journal of Legal Studies.

Here are some other points to ponder.

<ul type="square">
The US Commission on Civil Rights didnt find a single case of voter intimidation by Florida law enforcement. Incidentally 6 of 8 of the members of that commission are Democrats.
Florida law prohibits convicted felons from voting. The firm that processed the list did make mistakes. However no data indicates minorities were specifically targeted. Yes more blacks were removed. Guess what, the majority of felons in Florida are black. In fact, whites were almost twice as likely to be erroneously removed from the voter rolls.
This one is my favorite. The overall rate of spoiled ballots was 14% higher when the county election supervisor was a Democrat, and 31% higher when the supervisor was an African American Democrat. The famed butterfly ballots of Palm Beach County were creations of Democrats. Wow the vast right wing conspiracy even has Dems on its side!!!!!!!
[/list]

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Another typical refuge of arguing non-issues, "Bush is a shill for the rich". I didnt know the rich were voting bloc. Guess how many of the top ten richest Congressmen are Dems. How about Soros? Is Bush a shill for Soros too?

I for one am quite satisfied with how Bush has represented the country. He showed the world that we arent a paper tiger and that we arent afraid to take action when no one else has the fortitude to take it. Those are attributes that most Americans used to be proud of.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well said. According to this article (http://www.detnews.com/2002/business/0210/29/politics-625801.htm)
Kerry is the richest, and there are more rich Democrats in office then R. Didn't realize this. Learned something new, thanks vultersrow.

As for him representing this country, I'm just glad he's rebuilding Iraq despite so much hostility. So many previous administrations have made empty promises or been fair weather friends. I can't help but think abandoning afghanistan and Osama bin Laden after they fought Russia was the real beginning of the 9/11 catastrophe.

[CORed]

Regarding Iraq, what I really fault Bush for is failing to understand that getting rid of Sadam was the easy part, and occupying Iraq and eatablishing a democratic government, or at least a non-hostile government, would be much more difficult. It seems that the Bush administration was so conviced that Iraq would grateful to us for overthrowing Sadam, that they were totally unprepared for what really happened, and completely lost control of the situation there. This to me, is symptomatic of one of the fundamental flaws in this administration: The "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with any facts." aproach to information. It seems that, instead of looking at the available evidence, then making a decision, Bush makes a decision, then selects the evidence which supports that decision, and fires anybody that dares to attempt to present evidence that doesn't support the decision.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding Iraq, what I really fault Bush for is failing to understand that getting rid of Sadam was the easy part, and occupying Iraq and eatablishing a democratic government, or at least a non-hostile government, would be much more difficult. It seems that the Bush administration was so conviced that Iraq would grateful to us for overthrowing Sadam, that they were totally unprepared for what really happened, and completely lost control of the situation there. This to me, is symptomatic of one of the fundamental flaws in this administration: The "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with any facts." aproach to information. It seems that, instead of looking at the available evidence, then making a decision, Bush makes a decision, then selects the evidence which supports that decision, and fires anybody that dares to attempt to present evidence that doesn't support the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm listening, but do you have any hard evidence/data that he thought Iraq would be easy? And when I say evidence, I mean a quote from Bush. Reporters tend to spin the news. They did that with Clinton, with Bush's yellow cake, and his lies about WMD's, and they will do it again. I can only remember Bush saying that this is going to be a long and tough problem to deal with. I remember him repeatedly saying that. I've never heard him say Iraq was going to be quick and easy. Ousting Saddam was quick and easy, quickest in history, but rebuilding Iraq isn't. Rebuilding post Nazi Germany was the same way. Rice said that on TV. Again do you have any evidence?

[CORed]

My understanding of the Florida situation is that had the counties that Gore cherry-picked to be recounted been recounted, Bush still would have won. Had the entire state been recounted. Gore would have won. I find it hysterically funny and ironic that Al Gore was trying to steal an election that he had actually won.

[West]

I fail to see how Clinton's remarks about Iraq in '97 and '98 change the fact that Bush and/or his administration lied about WMDs before taking us to war. That was then, this is now. Far more importantly, Clinton didn't take us to war, Bush did.

Rather than reading a list of Clinton quotes from the 90's to determine whether Bush lied in 2002 &amp; 2003, I've got a more relevant link for you:

Iraq on the Record report (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf)

Maybe you'd like to watch this video of a backpedalling Donald Rumsfeld lying about his own statements regarding Iraq...

Rumsfeld (http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/RUMSFELDDENY4.WMV)

[West]

Yeah, amazingly enough, given that that was the very first paragraph in a link I provided myself, I have actually read that quote. Maybe if you bothered to read anything beyond that, you might have read:

[ QUOTE ]
Bush probably would have won any recount of "undervotes," ballots that were rejected because they registered no clear vote for any presidential candidate. By contrast, Gore would have won most recount scenarios that included "overvotes," ballots that showed votes for more than one candidate. However, Gore's lawyers never pressed for overvotes to be recounted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because Bush may have won a recount that considered only undervotes, does not mean that he would have won had "all legal votes" been considered.

This is not even considering all the people disenfranchised by the state who never got to cast any kind of vote, legal or otherwise. But only "biased left wing sources" will tell you about that.

[wacki]

West, I'ts not just Clinton, there is the 9/11 report and Putin recent quote, and much much more. But I think I'm wasting my time talking here.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because Bush may have won a recount that considered only undervotes, does not mean that he would have won had "all legal votes" been considered.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tunnel vision I see. In Florida overvotes are invalid, period, no exceptions. Got it? Probably not. So using your logic if they had counted some of Californias extra Gore votes for Gore in Florida he would have won the election. After all, extra California votes are just as legal in Florida as a ballot with an overvote.


Jimbo

[cardcounter0]

"In Florida overvotes are invalid, period, no exceptions."

I'm not an expert on Flordia election law, but I don't think this is correct. I think the law was every vote is valid were the voters intention is clear. So if a vote was technically an overvote, if the voters intention for a single candidate was clear, it would have been valid.

It is still a moot point, so you are ignoring the flaws that took place causing votes not to be counted or potential voters not being allowed to cast a vote in the first place.

If an election illegally only allows me to vote, it doesn't matter how carefully you count my 1 valid vote, double check it, recount it, and count it again. It probably isn't a valid election.

There were many stunts being pulled (of which counting valid votes was only one small tip of the iceberg) to call the whole election into doubt.

So keep focused on how carefully the cards where dealt from the stacked deck. Ignore the fact that the deck was stacked in the first place, just make sure all proper procedures are following in dealing the cards.

[vulturesrow]

Lets see the flaws..exactly how was the deck stacked?

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Tunnel vision I see. In Florida overvotes are invalid, period, no exceptions. Got it? Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? According to the Florida Supreme Court: A “legal vote,” is “one in which there is a ‘clear indication of the intent of the voter. ’ ”

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.”"

I am quoting the Supreme Court's decision (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html) in Bush v. Gore.

In the dissent (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html) by Justice Stevens, "As the majority further acknowledges, Florida law holds that all ballots that reveal the intent of the voter constitute valid votes."

Got it? Probably not.

[cardcounter0]

Nevermind.

Been documented time and again. Don't worry about having to rehash the same excuses, spin, discounts, and smoke and mirrors.

It is obvious God determined that Bush should be President. He was chosen by divine intervention. No proof or argument can refute that.

[heavybody]

[ QUOTE ]
whats so cosmic about the fact that the guy isnt a great public speaker. Hardly grounds for not being a suitable president.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when one seeks any job there are certain skill sets he should have to do the job effectively and if he is seeking to be President of the United States don't you think it behooves him to be a proficient public speaker? Maybe he is just lazy.(I agree with you that it may not be a necessity to be a great public speaker to be President but it sure helps.)

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "Florida’s basic command for the count of legally cast votes is to consider the “intent of the voter.”"


[/ QUOTE ]

I am pleased that we agree on the definitiuon of a valid vote. If a ballot had a vote for Gore and a vote for Bush (A valid example of an overvote) just how do you determine the voters intent? Oh, you can't? Guess that makes it invalid.

Jimbo

[cardcounter0]

Another valid example of an overvote:

A person marks every democrat candidate.
There is a large X for Gore, and a small mark in the Bush box that the machine picks up. Invalid overvote -- not counted.

A person marks both boxes, but then circles the Gore Vote and writes "AL GORE" in large letters. Invalid overvote -- not counted.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Another valid example of an overvote:

A person marks every democrat candidate.
There is a large X for Gore, and a small mark in the Bush box that the machine picks up. Invalid overvote -- not counted.

A person marks both boxes, but then circles the Gore Vote and writes "AL GORE" in large letters. Invalid overvote -- not counted.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made some good points. Would this apply to the card-punched type ballots as well?

[cardcounter0]

I think there was some discussion about this also. 1 hole completely punched, 1 slightly detached. Both holes punched, "AL GORE" written on ballet. All democrat holes punched, Al Gore hole not completely punched.

Of course this could have went both ways, and with such a close election, a complete recount should have been done.
This is what the Supreme Court stopped, and with the shenanigans that had already been pulled, it probably would have just opened the door to all kinds of tricks during the recount.

Still ignores the point of what probably wasn't a pro-Bush as much as it was a racially stacked deck, to keep minorities out of the vote, for State and Local reasons, not National.

[wacki]

My question is Why didn't kery endorse any of the objections to Bush's election. He was in the Senate at the time.