Full Version: Bush v Kerry
I can't believe I did not see this thread here. I am a noob here so forgive me for my post if is has been done.
Who would make the better President and why?
Please leave the Bush is teh dumbest evar or Kerry does the flippest flop. I just see that as partisan coolaide drinking and would be unproductive here.
Thanks,
Who would make the better President and why?
Please leave the Bush is teh dumbest evar or Kerry does the flippest flop. I just see that as partisan coolaide drinking and would be unproductive here.
Thanks,
QUOTE(SurferH2O @ Aug 29 2004, 02:43 PM)
I can't believe I did not see this thread here. I am a noob here so forgive me for my post if is has been done.
Who would make the better President and why?
Please leave the Bush is teh dumbest evar or Kerry does the flippest flop. I just see that as partisan coolaide drinking and would be unproductive here.
Thanks,
Who would make the better President and why?
Please leave the Bush is teh dumbest evar or Kerry does the flippest flop. I just see that as partisan coolaide drinking and would be unproductive here.
Thanks,
I think you havent seen this debate because it is so general. Thats why we divide it into seperate issues such as economy, war on terror and such. It easier to focus on one certain issue than deal with every single one in one topic.
You do know that we're in the midst of an election to determine the public's answer to that question, right?
Okay, I voted for Bush, and, while he is not my ideal candidate (that's another question), Kerry's deficiencies of character, judgement, and competence lead me to believe he would be a very, very, poor President.
The Swift controversy reveals all three deficiencies. Simply, Kerry has been caught lying, repeatedly, about his VietNam experiences. He has done this not simply 35 years ago, but continues with his lies. Now, some folks will say that Bush lied about this, that, and the other thing, which may be true, but Bush hasn't been lying repeatedly about the same thing for more than 3 decades.
Judgement: Some can point to his incredibly bad judgement regarding the behavior of the Communists if they secured power in Southeast Asia, wherein he estimated that maybe 5k people would be killed, as opposed to the millions that died. Of course, that could be chalked up to youthful ignorance, and an older, wiser Kerry would know better, a charitable concession I'll make. However, an older, wiser John Kerry, who is "in touch" with the people he wishes to lead, would not have had the poor judgement to make his VietNam record such a centerpiece of his campaign. (He has managed to "enrage the Veteran Street") However much one may fault Bush's judgement in prosecuting the Iraq war, one has to realize this: Bush started that process with no experience as Commander In Chief. The mistakes he has made can be attributed to "learning on the job", which, btw, is something Kerry will have to do if he makes the transition from "Running For Office" to CinC. No, the problem is, Kerry has been doing the "Running For Office" job for 3 decades! Since he returned from VietNam, the sum total of his career has been electoral politics. He is a seasoned pro. With 30 years of experience, making a boneheaded move like this demonstrates very poor judgement.
Competence: Again, this goes back to Kerry experience in electioneering, yet it looks like we're watching the first scrimmage of the freshman football team. Anti-Bush 527s have operated without a peep from the Kerry campaign, Moore's movie stalks the theaters, yet the Swift folks come along taking shots at Kerry and the competence in meeting the threat to his candidacy has been woefully lacking in a veteran candidate.
Contrary to what some think, both Kerry and Bush are bright, intelligent men. If one chooses instead to give all the credit to Karl Rove and the neo-con conspiracy, that's fine, because it doesn't change the basic equation. Replace "Kerry Campaign" for Kerry everywhere in there you want, and "Nefarious NeoCon ChimpMasters" for Bush, and the results are the same. The NNC came to the Iraq war with far less experience running wars than Kerry & Co. have in electoral politics, yet Kerry & Co. look like the chimps right now.
Bush, with less than 3 years "running a war" is doing a far more competent job at it than Kerry is at running his campaign with 30 years experience.
Okay, I voted for Bush, and, while he is not my ideal candidate (that's another question), Kerry's deficiencies of character, judgement, and competence lead me to believe he would be a very, very, poor President.
The Swift controversy reveals all three deficiencies. Simply, Kerry has been caught lying, repeatedly, about his VietNam experiences. He has done this not simply 35 years ago, but continues with his lies. Now, some folks will say that Bush lied about this, that, and the other thing, which may be true, but Bush hasn't been lying repeatedly about the same thing for more than 3 decades.
Judgement: Some can point to his incredibly bad judgement regarding the behavior of the Communists if they secured power in Southeast Asia, wherein he estimated that maybe 5k people would be killed, as opposed to the millions that died. Of course, that could be chalked up to youthful ignorance, and an older, wiser Kerry would know better, a charitable concession I'll make. However, an older, wiser John Kerry, who is "in touch" with the people he wishes to lead, would not have had the poor judgement to make his VietNam record such a centerpiece of his campaign. (He has managed to "enrage the Veteran Street") However much one may fault Bush's judgement in prosecuting the Iraq war, one has to realize this: Bush started that process with no experience as Commander In Chief. The mistakes he has made can be attributed to "learning on the job", which, btw, is something Kerry will have to do if he makes the transition from "Running For Office" to CinC. No, the problem is, Kerry has been doing the "Running For Office" job for 3 decades! Since he returned from VietNam, the sum total of his career has been electoral politics. He is a seasoned pro. With 30 years of experience, making a boneheaded move like this demonstrates very poor judgement.
Competence: Again, this goes back to Kerry experience in electioneering, yet it looks like we're watching the first scrimmage of the freshman football team. Anti-Bush 527s have operated without a peep from the Kerry campaign, Moore's movie stalks the theaters, yet the Swift folks come along taking shots at Kerry and the competence in meeting the threat to his candidacy has been woefully lacking in a veteran candidate.
Contrary to what some think, both Kerry and Bush are bright, intelligent men. If one chooses instead to give all the credit to Karl Rove and the neo-con conspiracy, that's fine, because it doesn't change the basic equation. Replace "Kerry Campaign" for Kerry everywhere in there you want, and "Nefarious NeoCon ChimpMasters" for Bush, and the results are the same. The NNC came to the Iraq war with far less experience running wars than Kerry & Co. have in electoral politics, yet Kerry & Co. look like the chimps right now.
Bush, with less than 3 years "running a war" is doing a far more competent job at it than Kerry is at running his campaign with 30 years experience.
QUOTE
Contrary to what some think, both Kerry and Bush are bright, intelligent men.
This is the first time (honestly) that I have heard someone - ever! - to call Bush bright and intelligent. You must have some grounds for that statement. I don't want to pick on his verbal gaffes - that can happen to anybody - but I'd like to know what leads you to believe that he is bright and intelligent. I can find you two dozens of well-publicized quotes from his former colleagues, classmates, professors, and members of his cabinet which testify to the contrary. Such as
From Richard Perle:
QUOTE
"The first time I met Bush … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."
From Paul O'Neill:
QUOTE
"The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection."
From David Frum:
QUOTE
"Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. … Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show."
From Laura Bush:
QUOTE
"George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action."
I have a whole bunch of coworkers who voted Bush and will vote Bush but concede that he is not the brightest fellow.
So, could you elaborate a little bit on that one?
I think you pretty much violated the spirit of this thread.
You can take ANY person over a period of time that is that public and get quotes that make them look dumb.
I will simply submit this. Al Gore was made a professor (Smart Guy?). Bush basically beat Gore in 3 out of 3 debates. At least that was Gore's claim himself on Larry King Live years ago.
I don't know maybe we will call Gore dumb next.
Bush also beat Ann Richards pretty bad in a debate for Governor. Maybe she is just dumb too?
Let's move on.
You can take ANY person over a period of time that is that public and get quotes that make them look dumb.
I will simply submit this. Al Gore was made a professor (Smart Guy?). Bush basically beat Gore in 3 out of 3 debates. At least that was Gore's claim himself on Larry King Live years ago.
I don't know maybe we will call Gore dumb next.
Bush also beat Ann Richards pretty bad in a debate for Governor. Maybe she is just dumb too?
Let's move on.
On Capitol Gang yesterday, Margaret Carlson, made the statement that Kerry might be a bad candidate, but that he would make a better president than Bush. I am paraphrasing her statement.
Generally, the reason I think Kerry would be better is that he seems to see things in shades of gray rather than black and white.
Specifically, I think Bush has been a total disaster domestically. Evidence of this include, but is not limited to, (1) a restrictive approach to embryonic stem cell research, (2) attempts to merge church and state, (3) the non-materialization of "compassionate conservatism," (4) tax cuts geared to trickle down, supply side,voodoo economics or whatever one wants to call it, (5) an economy that has produced a net job loss, more people without health care and more people below the poverty line. The three years of "bad" times under Bush, filtered down to the states, which are strapped for funds. When I retired from teaching in 2002, my health insurance premium at that time was $168.00 per month. In September, 2003 that went up to $212.00 per month. This September 1 it will go up to $280.00 per month. My co pays and doctors visits almost doubled on September 1, 2003. This September 1, the deductable will go up from $240 a year to $300 per year. In short, retired Texas Teachers are paying more, a lot more, for less insurance, (6) "No Child Left Behind" the underfunded Bush educational imitative, is based on the Texas model, which was fully implemented by Bush as Governor of Texas. The Texas model was the product of a committee headed by Ross Perot in 1984. Part of the model was "accountability" based on criterion referenced test scores. For several years now, Texas educators have been living under the guillotine of such tests. The current version is Texas Test of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Until the test is given late in the school year, teachers, in many cases teach to the test. According to Molly Ivins, scores on the previous test, Texas Assessment Academic Skills, (TAAS) went up while SAT scores went down.
For the first time since 1982, retired Texas teachers did not get a cost of living adjustment. A week ago Friday, I was talking to Lon Burnam, my state representative. Lon said that retired teachers may not get a COLA in the Texas legislative session that begins in January, 2005. If this happens, retired teachers in Texas will be stuck at 2001 annuities until at least 2007. When combined with exploding insurance costs, this is a recipe for financial disaster. Yes, national economics do "trickle down" to the states. Bush's failures are felt at all levels.
While some give Bush good marks for the "war" on terror, I think you can make an equally good case for the proposition that the war in Iraq has actually created more terrorists. Add to this, the fact that Bush is less articulate than most of the people who post on this board and he becomes, at least in my mind, a national and international embarrassment.
I'm not sure that Kerry can turn things around, but I want to try. At 61, I survey my country. Through my ears I hear Neil Young's The Needle and the Damage Done. I see what Bush has done and draw an analogy to the song.
I look at the future and shudder at the thought of Bush being able to make a couple of Supreme Court appointments. I see a country more polarized than anytime in our history with the exception of the Civil War and perhaps the Vietnam era. I see the hamburger buns of polarization without the meat, lettuce and tomatoes of the center. I see a country with a Republican in the White House, Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and increasingly more Republicans in control of state and local governments. While some (Ralph Nader, for example) argue the merits of a three party system, I would be happy to return to two broad based competitive parties.
My prayer is that I don't die with Bush in office.
Generally, the reason I think Kerry would be better is that he seems to see things in shades of gray rather than black and white.
Specifically, I think Bush has been a total disaster domestically. Evidence of this include, but is not limited to, (1) a restrictive approach to embryonic stem cell research, (2) attempts to merge church and state, (3) the non-materialization of "compassionate conservatism," (4) tax cuts geared to trickle down, supply side,voodoo economics or whatever one wants to call it, (5) an economy that has produced a net job loss, more people without health care and more people below the poverty line. The three years of "bad" times under Bush, filtered down to the states, which are strapped for funds. When I retired from teaching in 2002, my health insurance premium at that time was $168.00 per month. In September, 2003 that went up to $212.00 per month. This September 1 it will go up to $280.00 per month. My co pays and doctors visits almost doubled on September 1, 2003. This September 1, the deductable will go up from $240 a year to $300 per year. In short, retired Texas Teachers are paying more, a lot more, for less insurance, (6) "No Child Left Behind" the underfunded Bush educational imitative, is based on the Texas model, which was fully implemented by Bush as Governor of Texas. The Texas model was the product of a committee headed by Ross Perot in 1984. Part of the model was "accountability" based on criterion referenced test scores. For several years now, Texas educators have been living under the guillotine of such tests. The current version is Texas Test of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Until the test is given late in the school year, teachers, in many cases teach to the test. According to Molly Ivins, scores on the previous test, Texas Assessment Academic Skills, (TAAS) went up while SAT scores went down.
For the first time since 1982, retired Texas teachers did not get a cost of living adjustment. A week ago Friday, I was talking to Lon Burnam, my state representative. Lon said that retired teachers may not get a COLA in the Texas legislative session that begins in January, 2005. If this happens, retired teachers in Texas will be stuck at 2001 annuities until at least 2007. When combined with exploding insurance costs, this is a recipe for financial disaster. Yes, national economics do "trickle down" to the states. Bush's failures are felt at all levels.
While some give Bush good marks for the "war" on terror, I think you can make an equally good case for the proposition that the war in Iraq has actually created more terrorists. Add to this, the fact that Bush is less articulate than most of the people who post on this board and he becomes, at least in my mind, a national and international embarrassment.
I'm not sure that Kerry can turn things around, but I want to try. At 61, I survey my country. Through my ears I hear Neil Young's The Needle and the Damage Done. I see what Bush has done and draw an analogy to the song.
I look at the future and shudder at the thought of Bush being able to make a couple of Supreme Court appointments. I see a country more polarized than anytime in our history with the exception of the Civil War and perhaps the Vietnam era. I see the hamburger buns of polarization without the meat, lettuce and tomatoes of the center. I see a country with a Republican in the White House, Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and increasingly more Republicans in control of state and local governments. While some (Ralph Nader, for example) argue the merits of a three party system, I would be happy to return to two broad based competitive parties.
My prayer is that I don't die with Bush in office.
QUOTE(SurferH2O @ Aug 29 2004, 07:45 PM)
I think you pretty much violated the spirit of this thread.
You can take ANY person over a period of time that is that public and get quotes that make them look dumb.
I will simply submit this. Al Gore was made a professor (Smart Guy?). Bush basically beat Gore in 3 out of 3 debates. At least that was Gore's claim himself on Larry King Live years ago.
I don't know maybe we will call Gore dumb next.
Bush also beat Ann Richards pretty bad in a debate for Governor. Maybe she is just dumb too?
Let's move on.
You can take ANY person over a period of time that is that public and get quotes that make them look dumb.
I will simply submit this. Al Gore was made a professor (Smart Guy?). Bush basically beat Gore in 3 out of 3 debates. At least that was Gore's claim himself on Larry King Live years ago.
I don't know maybe we will call Gore dumb next.
Bush also beat Ann Richards pretty bad in a debate for Governor. Maybe she is just dumb too?
Let's move on.
I don't think so at all. The mental capacity of the president is as valid topic of discussion as character, judgement, honesty, and leadership. And I challenge you to find quotes about Carter, Bush Sr., or Nixon that will make them look dumb (evil maybe
... but definitely not dumb). Now, when I learn that someone who has presidential aspirations gets 73 in Introduction to the American Political System, that tells me that he made a choice to be intellectually lazy. Many of us went through High School and college and we all know that there's only one reason not to get into upper 80s in any discipline: your own lazyness.It doesn't take brightness and intelligence to "outperform" someone during presidential debates. Someone like Bill O'Reilly can outdebate the team of MIT professors with ease. The candidate which comes up with the snappy catchphrases, looks confident, etc. will create a perception of winning. That's the result of our media-driven election process.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Aug 29 2004, 06:33 PM)
QUOTE
Contrary to what some think, both Kerry and Bush are bright, intelligent men.
This is the first time (honestly) that I have heard someone - ever! - to call Bush bright and intelligent. You must have some grounds for that statement. I don't want to pick on his verbal gaffes - that can happen to anybody - but I'd like to know what leads you to believe that he is bright and intelligent. I can find you two dozens of well-publicized quotes from his former colleagues, classmates, professors, and members of his cabinet which testify to the contrary. Such as...
I have a whole bunch of coworkers who voted Bush and will vote Bush but concede that he is not the brightest fellow.
QUOTE
So, could you elaborate a little bit on that one?
From Richard Perle:
QUOTE
"The first time I met Bush … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."
Let me ask you, which guy asks a question when he doesn't know something, the smart guy, or the dumb guy?Knowledge alone is no indicator of inteligence.
From Paul O'Neill:
QUOTE
"The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection."
Interesting analogy, who's handicapped, the blind man, or the deaf people?From David Frum:
QUOTE
"Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. … Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show."
My computer has a great memory for facts and figures, but that doesn't make it either bright or intelligent.From Laura Bush:
QUOTE
"George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action."
Navel gazing, er, introspection has nothing to do with intelligence.Intelligence comes in many forms. It goes beyond having a PhD, or powerful rhetoric, or encyclopaedic memory, or the genius of Carlos Santana, or etc, etc... "Instinct" is one of those forms, it simply lies beyond the realm of scientific analysis.
Aside from his results, and the caliber of people he's chosen to surround himself with, I base my assessment on how he handles himself in live unscripted appearances. Not scripted speeches, but live interviews and press conferences. Yes, he stumbles over words and has given a whole new life to the hobby of collecting malapropisms, but he's sharp.
I would ask you to reconsider your notions of intelligence. I don't do this to convince you to vote for Bush (I'm not naive enough to expect you to change your vote on this basis), but rather because you will miss out on a tremendous amount of joy in this life by holding such narrow definitions.
Grace and peace.
Edited to fix quotes
Thanks for the derail English Horn.
Bill O'Rielly is a Harvard Graduate.... real real bad example.
Standing up in a debate and performing definitely shows intelligence, thought, and agility of mind. I have to discount your opinion in this. I don't want to be a Bush apologist or supporter. The attack is simply off base.
Now let us please get back to a real discussion.
Bill O'Rielly is a Harvard Graduate.... real real bad example.
Standing up in a debate and performing definitely shows intelligence, thought, and agility of mind. I have to discount your opinion in this. I don't want to be a Bush apologist or supporter. The attack is simply off base.
Now let us please get back to a real discussion.
I am not the president of United States of America, and he is.
Yes, I want a guy in the High Office who is Cum Laude graduate from whatever college he graduated from, and not a "C" student. Why isn't it obvious that low grades in college represent either intellectual lazyness or dyslexia? I don't want a guy who just "likes action" and "doesn't need to evaluate and re-evaluate the decision" because the decisions that he makes affect fates of nations and peoples around the Globe. I want a guy who doesn't mix up Slovakia and Slovenia, I want a guy who shows some respect for foreign countries and cultures.
There's a saying that each country deserves its leaders. I believe United States, the great, great nation, deserves so much better than this.
Edited to remove quote of and response to removed post.
Yes, I want a guy in the High Office who is Cum Laude graduate from whatever college he graduated from, and not a "C" student. Why isn't it obvious that low grades in college represent either intellectual lazyness or dyslexia? I don't want a guy who just "likes action" and "doesn't need to evaluate and re-evaluate the decision" because the decisions that he makes affect fates of nations and peoples around the Globe. I want a guy who doesn't mix up Slovakia and Slovenia, I want a guy who shows some respect for foreign countries and cultures.
There's a saying that each country deserves its leaders. I believe United States, the great, great nation, deserves so much better than this.
Edited to remove quote of and response to removed post.
Bikerdad-Well, neither are you nor I, Also, none of them got an Ivy League MBA, nor mastered flying a high performance jet fighter.
All of which Bush got very very very preferential treatment to participate in those endevours (bumped 500 other candidates ahead of him for flight school for instance) his grades in hi Ivy league school were less than sub-par, it was pure connections that have carried him through every thing he has done in his life - he is a poster boy for "rich person affirmative actions" - he would have not been able to participate in anything had it not been for his family connections.
Frankly, I believe I could do a better job of being president, or for that matter, I could pretty much do anything that he has done better, but I just don't have the family connections- I have had to earn everything for myself. I am not being egotistical here- I believe there are several poeple on this board that would be a better president , or CEO, or fighter pilot, or business man or governer than Bush- conservative or liberal
- GW simply does not have a grasp of both sides of any issue- and to me, this is what truly keeps him from being any kind of succesful leader- he is blind to 50% of the information and debate- so therefore, it is impossible for him to make a correct decisions, because he ignores the information he doesn't like to hear!
The only reason for some purported "win" by GW in debates is because his expectation to do well were so low - they expect a knockout by whomever talks to him- but if instead, they only give him a standing 8 count, so therefore, he won LOL
Kerry is a far better human being period than GW can ever be- simply by the fact he has dedicated his life to our country and our goverment- while GW was scamming, stealing, and snorfing coke LOL
Kerry's ability, as EH pointed out- is seing both sides of the debate- this is the backbone of American civilization- compromise- and GW just doesn't understand this.
All of which Bush got very very very preferential treatment to participate in those endevours (bumped 500 other candidates ahead of him for flight school for instance) his grades in hi Ivy league school were less than sub-par, it was pure connections that have carried him through every thing he has done in his life - he is a poster boy for "rich person affirmative actions" - he would have not been able to participate in anything had it not been for his family connections.
Frankly, I believe I could do a better job of being president, or for that matter, I could pretty much do anything that he has done better, but I just don't have the family connections- I have had to earn everything for myself. I am not being egotistical here- I believe there are several poeple on this board that would be a better president , or CEO, or fighter pilot, or business man or governer than Bush- conservative or liberal
- GW simply does not have a grasp of both sides of any issue- and to me, this is what truly keeps him from being any kind of succesful leader- he is blind to 50% of the information and debate- so therefore, it is impossible for him to make a correct decisions, because he ignores the information he doesn't like to hear! The only reason for some purported "win" by GW in debates is because his expectation to do well were so low - they expect a knockout by whomever talks to him- but if instead, they only give him a standing 8 count, so therefore, he won LOL
Kerry is a far better human being period than GW can ever be- simply by the fact he has dedicated his life to our country and our goverment- while GW was scamming, stealing, and snorfing coke LOL
Kerry's ability, as EH pointed out- is seing both sides of the debate- this is the backbone of American civilization- compromise- and GW just doesn't understand this.
We had a booksmart president not too long ago.
Jimmy Carter
He was an completely bad president. Good Man... bad president.
Jimmy Carter
He was an completely bad president. Good Man... bad president.
QUOTE(SurferH2O @ Aug 29 2004, 10:48 PM)
We had a booksmart president not too long ago.
Jimmy Carter
He was an completely bad president. Good Man... bad president.
Jimmy Carter
He was an completely bad president. Good Man... bad president.
The merits of Carter's presidency could be discussed in a different thread, but even if we assume your position that Carter was a bad president, does it mean that from now on we should have a president who is... ahem... the opposite? Are you saying that this nation of 240 million people can not produce an individual who can be both - "book-smart" (as you put it, although I would rather call it "intellectual") and a good leader?
I am positive it can.
I had a much longer post, but I accidently closed the window. So, I'll make it short and sweet.
I'm voting against Bush for three reasons.
1) The environment, and politicizing scientists.
2) The economy, and how our recovery could have been much quicker if they gave tax cuts to people who spend their money. In a nut shell, big deficits for little bang.
3) Lastly, disagreement on a variety of social issues, including abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc.
I think Kerry would make a better leader because he at least is a pro-environment candidate (in my opinion, more so than Bush), promised to follow in the ways of Clinton in terms of economics, and agrees with me on a variety of social issues. I'd much rather jump into that dark room than stay with Bush.
Terrorism means little to me.
I'm voting against Bush for three reasons.
1) The environment, and politicizing scientists.
2) The economy, and how our recovery could have been much quicker if they gave tax cuts to people who spend their money. In a nut shell, big deficits for little bang.
3) Lastly, disagreement on a variety of social issues, including abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc.
I think Kerry would make a better leader because he at least is a pro-environment candidate (in my opinion, more so than Bush), promised to follow in the ways of Clinton in terms of economics, and agrees with me on a variety of social issues. I'd much rather jump into that dark room than stay with Bush.
Terrorism means little to me.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Aug 29 2004, 10:27 PM)
Yes, I want a guy in the High Office who is Cum Laude graduate from whatever college he graduated from, and not a "C" student. Why isn't it obvious that low grades in college represent either intellectual lazyness or dyslexia? I don't want a guy who just "likes action" and "doesn't need to evaluate and re-evaluate the decision" because the decisions that he makes affect fates of nations and peoples around the Globe. I want a guy who doesn't mix up Slovakia and Slovenia, I want a guy who shows some respect for foreign countries and cultures.
There's a saying that each country deserves its leaders. I believe United States, the great, great nation, deserves so much better than this.
Edited to remove quote of and response to removed post.
There's a saying that each country deserves its leaders. I believe United States, the great, great nation, deserves so much better than this.
Edited to remove quote of and response to removed post.
QUOTE
This evening on MSNBC Bush told Brian Williams, "Over the course of this campaign, I might have flubbed ten words." This is a gross underestimation from a man who is in severe denial about his serious language problem. Here's a list of 28 words that we recall offhand. They have been mispronounced, misused or both. "Nuclear, anecdotes, subliminable, interface, hostile, forethought, analyzation, subscribe, cufflink, tenants, vulcanize, pillared, gist, miscalculated, preservation, mental, presumptive, inebriating, compassionated, tactical, admirably, strategic, conservatism, obsfucate, subsidation, terriers, bariffs, emotionality." Many of these words have been abused over and over again. This list just represents Bush's diction problem. He also has a severe grammar problem ("Is our children learning?) as well as serious difficulties with syntax ("I am against hard quotas, quotas they basically delineate based upon whatever.") His sense of parallelism is faulty ("It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature.'') and his use of conventional figures of speech are often unclear ("We ought to make the pie higher"). Brian Williams told Bush that one writer recently suggested he may be dyslexic. Bush called the suggestion "foolish" and said the writer was "writing fiction." Dyslexia, which affects how a person processes language, has been said to run in families and affects males in particular. Ex-President Bush's language difficulties in public were described as "dyslexic" more than once, and Barbara Bush wrote an article at that time in the Washington Post about W's younger brother Neil's dyslexia. Given that as background, it's curious that Bush has been so dismissive about the possibility that his "tortured syntax" and "verbal howlers" are the results of dyslexia. --Politex, 9/20/00
Bush is dyslexic. I guess its easy for people to forget or not even be aware of it. It makes the jobs of most simple when criticizing his supposed lack on intelligence. Bush denies being dyslexic because i guess he feels the American people wouldnt vote for a dyslexic president. He would rather take the criticism that he is a moron.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Aug 29 2004, 11:56 PM)
Bush is dyslexic. I guess its easy for people to forget or not even be aware of it. It makes the jobs of most simple when criticizing his supposed lack on intelligence. Bush denies being dyslexic because i guess he feels the American people wouldnt vote for a dyslexic president. He would rather take the criticism that he is a moron.
Here's the definiton:
QUOTE
Dyslexia is a syndrome in which a person's reading and/or writing ability is significantly lower than that which would be predicted by his or her general level of intelligence. People are diagnosed as dyslexic when their reading problems can not be explained by lack of intellectual ability, or by inadequate instruction, or by sensory problems such as poor eyesight.
<snip>
Dyslexia is also being associated with phonological difficulties, such as enunciation.
<snip>
Dyslexia is also being associated with phonological difficulties, such as enunciation.
So are you saying that his significantly reduced reading abilities influence his learning abilities, and as a result he got lower grades in school? That could be plausible, but do we really want a guy who has learning difficulties to be our President? If this is true, does the public has a right to know so it can make a concious choice?
We had a Rhodes scholar for a President whose only time he was caught with his pants down was when his pants were actually down. Bill Clinton could think circles around this current President. He is a policy wonk who actually reads books and shows interest in the opinions of others. If it weren't for Bill Clinton's presidency and the benefits the country enjoyed under his leadership, I would be more prone to be less judgemental of George Walker Bush.
Bush is the son of privilege. There are darned few things he has actually worked hard for and succeeded. He did not experience hardship in early life to shape his character as many other Presidents have. As a result, he appears not to have shown an appreciation of the first-rate educational opportunities that were offered to him, nor did he work to distinguish himself as a serviceman and a pilot when Daddy's connections brought him to the top of the list and gave him the opportunity that more deserving enlistees were denied. He campaigned on character, but what was that character? That he didn't get fellatio when acting as governor of Texas?
John Kerry was also born into privilege. He was also given a first-rate education, and he distinguished himself scholastically. He joined the service and volunteered for duty in Vietnam, choosing not to accept a cushier existence by virtue of his family's wealth and prestige.
John Kerry, whether or not some spite-driven veterans want to credit him for it, distinguished himself in Vietnam sufficiently to receive medals for his service there. That he didn't stay there to die shows that he had aspirations other than fighting a frustrating war in the jungle. That he didn't keep his mouth shut once he came back from Vietnam shows that while he did not have the wisdom of a more mature veteran, he was disillusioned with what was happening during that war and he felt that the nation needed to know. (That he was seen seated two rows behind Jane Fonda at a protest rally reveals as much of Kerry's character as a photo of anyone taken with Tricky Dick Nixon reveals their character.)
John Kerry ran for State Representative and lost. But he didn't sit around and mope, or ask Daddy to pull a few strings for him. He finished law school and became a prosecutor. After that, he ran for Senate. John Kerry is not an underachiever. He believes in himself and, from what I can tell, he actually cares about the plight of those in society who were not born with silver spoons in their mouths and have to struggle week to week to make ends meet.
John Kerry was voted by the League of Conservation Voters as being the best candidate regarding environmental issues, which ultimately affect us all.
John Kerry, along with John Edwards, plans on developing a program where all children have health coverage.
John Kerry, unlike the current President, seeks to have our borders better protected. George W. Bush's Homeland Security program is underfunded by design. He wants to rely on those already in civil service jobs, but deny the civil servants the right of organized labor representation or the benefits they have previously received. While he touts the biggest tax cuts in history, firefighters and police have been laid off from their jobs because the counties and municipalities are in dire financial straits.
There are other reasons why I am voting for John Kerry and not George W. Bush, but this looks like enough for now.
Bush is the son of privilege. There are darned few things he has actually worked hard for and succeeded. He did not experience hardship in early life to shape his character as many other Presidents have. As a result, he appears not to have shown an appreciation of the first-rate educational opportunities that were offered to him, nor did he work to distinguish himself as a serviceman and a pilot when Daddy's connections brought him to the top of the list and gave him the opportunity that more deserving enlistees were denied. He campaigned on character, but what was that character? That he didn't get fellatio when acting as governor of Texas?
John Kerry was also born into privilege. He was also given a first-rate education, and he distinguished himself scholastically. He joined the service and volunteered for duty in Vietnam, choosing not to accept a cushier existence by virtue of his family's wealth and prestige.
John Kerry, whether or not some spite-driven veterans want to credit him for it, distinguished himself in Vietnam sufficiently to receive medals for his service there. That he didn't stay there to die shows that he had aspirations other than fighting a frustrating war in the jungle. That he didn't keep his mouth shut once he came back from Vietnam shows that while he did not have the wisdom of a more mature veteran, he was disillusioned with what was happening during that war and he felt that the nation needed to know. (That he was seen seated two rows behind Jane Fonda at a protest rally reveals as much of Kerry's character as a photo of anyone taken with Tricky Dick Nixon reveals their character.)
John Kerry ran for State Representative and lost. But he didn't sit around and mope, or ask Daddy to pull a few strings for him. He finished law school and became a prosecutor. After that, he ran for Senate. John Kerry is not an underachiever. He believes in himself and, from what I can tell, he actually cares about the plight of those in society who were not born with silver spoons in their mouths and have to struggle week to week to make ends meet.
John Kerry was voted by the League of Conservation Voters as being the best candidate regarding environmental issues, which ultimately affect us all.
John Kerry, along with John Edwards, plans on developing a program where all children have health coverage.
John Kerry, unlike the current President, seeks to have our borders better protected. George W. Bush's Homeland Security program is underfunded by design. He wants to rely on those already in civil service jobs, but deny the civil servants the right of organized labor representation or the benefits they have previously received. While he touts the biggest tax cuts in history, firefighters and police have been laid off from their jobs because the counties and municipalities are in dire financial straits.
There are other reasons why I am voting for John Kerry and not George W. Bush, but this looks like enough for now.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Aug 30 2004, 12:15 AM)
Here's the definiton:
So are you saying that his significantly reduced reading abilities influence his learning abilities, and as a result he got lower grades in school? That could be plausible, but do we really want a guy who has learning difficulties to be our President? If this is true, does the public has a right to know so it can make a concious choice?
QUOTE
Dyslexia is a syndrome in which a person's reading and/or writing ability is significantly lower than that which would be predicted by his or her general level of intelligence. People are diagnosed as dyslexic when their reading problems can not be explained by lack of intellectual ability, or by inadequate instruction, or by sensory problems such as poor eyesight.
<snip>
Dyslexia is also being associated with phonological difficulties, such as enunciation.
<snip>
Dyslexia is also being associated with phonological difficulties, such as enunciation.
So are you saying that his significantly reduced reading abilities influence his learning abilities, and as a result he got lower grades in school? That could be plausible, but do we really want a guy who has learning difficulties to be our President? If this is true, does the public has a right to know so it can make a concious choice?
Yes, that is exactly what i am saying and you easily proved my point on how people do not look to kindly on people with a learning disorder. It doesnt make him any more or less of a politician or a passionate speaker...its just that some people mistake it for idiocy. He slurs some words and his grammar isnt the best...we all know this. It sounds like a learning disorder to me. And his younger brother has it so we know that the possibility is great that he has it as well.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 29 2004, 09:36 PM)
Bikerdad-Well, neither are you nor I, Also, none of them got an Ivy League MBA, nor mastered flying a high performance jet fighter.
All of which Bush got very very very preferential treatment to participate in those endevours (bumped 500 other candidates ahead of him for flight school for instance) his grades in hi Ivy league school were less than sub-par, it was pure connections that have carried him through every thing he has done in his life - he is a poster boy for "rich person affirmative actions" - he would have not been able to participate in anything had it not been for his family connections.
All of which Bush got very very very preferential treatment to participate in those endevours (bumped 500 other candidates ahead of him for flight school for instance) his grades in hi Ivy league school were less than sub-par, it was pure connections that have carried him through every thing he has done in his life - he is a poster boy for "rich person affirmative actions" - he would have not been able to participate in anything had it not been for his family connections.
CR,
Your antipathy towards Bush is blinding you to what I said. I never credited Bush's getting into the Ivy League or flight school to his intelligence, I credit his completing them. Mrs. P will back me up on this, there is no way that patronage would get someone as dumb as you think Bush is through fighter school. Furthermore, if connections are so powerful, if it can get one through Ivy League graduate programs, then why did Al Gore, purportedly a smarter man than Bush, wash out of two Ivy League graduate programs?
I won't deny that connections can open a lot of doors, even smooth the way, but it ain't the panacea for dummies that you imagine.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Aug 30 2004, 12:18 AM)
Yes, that is exactly what i am saying and you easily proved my point on how people do not look to kindly on people with a learning disorder. It doesnt make him any more or less of a politician or a passionate speaker...its just that some people mistake it for idiocy. He slurs some words and his grammar isnt the best...we all know this. It sounds like a learning disorder to me. And his younger brother has it so we know that the possibility is great that he has it as well.
But the job of the President requires a lot of learning - if you are saying is true then you confirm that we have a puppet president with a good group of people around him who do all the work... The president ought to be able to have a full grasp of complex issues - this is not only a PR job where he has to give passionate speeches and shake hands with foreign dignitaries. If the president has a learning disorder he is, to quote the recent best-seller, Unfit for Command.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Aug 30 2004, 12:30 AM)
But the job of the President requires a lot of learning - if you are saying is true then you confirm that we have a puppet president with a good group of people around him who do all the work... The president ought to be able to have a full grasp of complex issues - this is not only a PR job where he has to give passionate speaches and shake hands with former dignitaries. If the president has a learning disorder he is, to quote the recent best-seller, Unfit for Command.
I guess people with a learning disorder shouldnt be allowed to vote either....
Bush isnt medically incompetent by any stretch of the imagination. I am just saying that he has a disorder and that some people think he is just plain dumb. I do not see him as any more or less of a president because of it.
First lets check out the history of Bush and then later Kerry
Bush:
1. Bush has never had a successful business endeavor in which he had a position of some responsibility
Spectrum 7 was a complete failure
[QUOTE]
Spectrum 7, his exploration and development company, had reported a net loss of $1.6 million in 1985, due to the fast-deteriorating value of its holdings. As the price of oil fell from $25 to $9 a barrel, the firm was on its way to losing another $402,000 by mid-1986. Bush's company owed more than $3 million in bank loans and other debts with no hope of paying them off in time. His investors had disappeared.
On the cusp of his 40th birthday, Bush had two choices: Cut his staff to the bone, hunker down and pray for oil prices to climb before the banks foreclosed; or find a bigger company that was willing to scoop him up, debts and all. "I'm all name and no money," the son of the then-vice president used to say.
Bush's name, however, was to help rescue him, just as it had attracted investors and helped revive his flagging fortunes throughout his years in the dusty plains city of Midland. A big Dallas-based firm, Harken Oil and Gas, was looking to buy up troubled oil companies. After finding Spectrum, Harken's executives saw a bonus in their target's CEO, despite his spotty track record
One of the reasons Harken was so interested in merging was because of George," said Paul Rea, a geologist who had been president of Spectrum 7. "They believed having George's name there would be a big help to them. They wanted him on their board."
[/QUOTE]
Then his next attempt at a business was Harken Corp.
[QUOTE]
On June 22 1990, George Bush, then a director with a company called Harken Energy, sold 212,140 shares for $848,000 (£548,100). Almost exactly two months later, on August 20, Harken announced a $23.2m loss, which caused its shares to drop to $2.375 from $3. The next day, Harken returned to $3, but fell to $1 at the end of 1990
Quite apart from Mr Bush's share dealings, the company came under scrutiny for a 1989 deal. In that transaction, Harken sold 80% of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership formed by Harken executives, who got most of the money for the deal by borrowing from Harken itself. The transaction allowed Harken to reduce the amount of debt on its balance sheet and to claim the proceeds of the sale as income
The SEC thought that the income should have been deferred to future years. After months of discussions with the SEC, Harken in January 1991 restated its financial reports to add $9m to its loss column, nearly quadrupling its loss. It is the kind of financial manoeuvre that would be frowned upon now after the Enron scandal
[QUOTE]
And the Minority stake in the Texas Rangers.
[QUOTE]
When George W. Bush first embarked on a deal to buy the Texas Rangers professional baseball team in 1988, he already had his eye on the governor’s mansion in Austin. But he knew that to have a shot at winning, he would need better credentials than a string of unsuccessful oil companies and a failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1989 he told Time magazine, “My biggest liability in Texas is the question, ‘What’s the boy ever done?’ He could be riding on Daddy’s name
With this arrangement in place, Bush and his partners bought the team from Chiles on April 21, 1989, for $86 million. To scrape together his $500,000 stake in the Rangers, Bush borrowed the money from a bank in Midland where he once was a director. He owned 1.8 percent of the Rangers. (He later invested an additional $106,302
In 1998, Hicks helped provide Bush with an even greater windfall. He bought the Texas Rangers for $250 million, three times what Bush and his partners had paid 10 years earlier. The new stadium and the real estate around it greatly boosted the final sale price. And, since his partners had upped Bush’s stake in the team from 1.8 to 11.8 percent, his cut from the proceeds of the sale was $14.9 million, a 25-fold return on his investment of $606,302. Rainwater, who had put far more money into the team than Bush, made $25 million
[/QUOTE]
So because of his connections his stake was boosted from 1.8 to 11.8 percent. And what did he do for the Texas Rangers.
[QUOTE]
Usually parked in a front-row seat by the dugout, with his feet up and a bag of peanuts perched in his lap, Bush put a congenial face on a crooked deal, at the heart of which lay a complicated land play
[/QUOTE]
Now to date he has had 2 failed businesses and the Texas Rangers in which he had nothing to do with the company's success.
Kerry:
Military service from 1966-1970.
Lawyer in District Attorney's office and private practice from 1972-1985
Senator from 1985-2004.
No failed businesses or tossing his last name around to get favors.
America knows the quagmire of the Iraq war and the economy with a net loss of jobs under Bushs watch.
Lets give Kerry a chance. There is no way he can do any worse, in fact I believe all Americans(except the rich) will benefit.
Bush:
1. Bush has never had a successful business endeavor in which he had a position of some responsibility
Spectrum 7 was a complete failure
[QUOTE]
Spectrum 7, his exploration and development company, had reported a net loss of $1.6 million in 1985, due to the fast-deteriorating value of its holdings. As the price of oil fell from $25 to $9 a barrel, the firm was on its way to losing another $402,000 by mid-1986. Bush's company owed more than $3 million in bank loans and other debts with no hope of paying them off in time. His investors had disappeared.
On the cusp of his 40th birthday, Bush had two choices: Cut his staff to the bone, hunker down and pray for oil prices to climb before the banks foreclosed; or find a bigger company that was willing to scoop him up, debts and all. "I'm all name and no money," the son of the then-vice president used to say.
Bush's name, however, was to help rescue him, just as it had attracted investors and helped revive his flagging fortunes throughout his years in the dusty plains city of Midland. A big Dallas-based firm, Harken Oil and Gas, was looking to buy up troubled oil companies. After finding Spectrum, Harken's executives saw a bonus in their target's CEO, despite his spotty track record
One of the reasons Harken was so interested in merging was because of George," said Paul Rea, a geologist who had been president of Spectrum 7. "They believed having George's name there would be a big help to them. They wanted him on their board."
[/QUOTE]
Then his next attempt at a business was Harken Corp.
[QUOTE]
On June 22 1990, George Bush, then a director with a company called Harken Energy, sold 212,140 shares for $848,000 (£548,100). Almost exactly two months later, on August 20, Harken announced a $23.2m loss, which caused its shares to drop to $2.375 from $3. The next day, Harken returned to $3, but fell to $1 at the end of 1990
Quite apart from Mr Bush's share dealings, the company came under scrutiny for a 1989 deal. In that transaction, Harken sold 80% of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership formed by Harken executives, who got most of the money for the deal by borrowing from Harken itself. The transaction allowed Harken to reduce the amount of debt on its balance sheet and to claim the proceeds of the sale as income
The SEC thought that the income should have been deferred to future years. After months of discussions with the SEC, Harken in January 1991 restated its financial reports to add $9m to its loss column, nearly quadrupling its loss. It is the kind of financial manoeuvre that would be frowned upon now after the Enron scandal
[QUOTE]
And the Minority stake in the Texas Rangers.
[QUOTE]
When George W. Bush first embarked on a deal to buy the Texas Rangers professional baseball team in 1988, he already had his eye on the governor’s mansion in Austin. But he knew that to have a shot at winning, he would need better credentials than a string of unsuccessful oil companies and a failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1989 he told Time magazine, “My biggest liability in Texas is the question, ‘What’s the boy ever done?’ He could be riding on Daddy’s name
With this arrangement in place, Bush and his partners bought the team from Chiles on April 21, 1989, for $86 million. To scrape together his $500,000 stake in the Rangers, Bush borrowed the money from a bank in Midland where he once was a director. He owned 1.8 percent of the Rangers. (He later invested an additional $106,302
In 1998, Hicks helped provide Bush with an even greater windfall. He bought the Texas Rangers for $250 million, three times what Bush and his partners had paid 10 years earlier. The new stadium and the real estate around it greatly boosted the final sale price. And, since his partners had upped Bush’s stake in the team from 1.8 to 11.8 percent, his cut from the proceeds of the sale was $14.9 million, a 25-fold return on his investment of $606,302. Rainwater, who had put far more money into the team than Bush, made $25 million
[/QUOTE]
So because of his connections his stake was boosted from 1.8 to 11.8 percent. And what did he do for the Texas Rangers.
[QUOTE]
Usually parked in a front-row seat by the dugout, with his feet up and a bag of peanuts perched in his lap, Bush put a congenial face on a crooked deal, at the heart of which lay a complicated land play
[/QUOTE]
Now to date he has had 2 failed businesses and the Texas Rangers in which he had nothing to do with the company's success.
Kerry:
Military service from 1966-1970.
Lawyer in District Attorney's office and private practice from 1972-1985
Senator from 1985-2004.
No failed businesses or tossing his last name around to get favors.
America knows the quagmire of the Iraq war and the economy with a net loss of jobs under Bushs watch.
Lets give Kerry a chance. There is no way he can do any worse, in fact I believe all Americans(except the rich) will benefit.
Popeye,
You can say the same for Bill Clinton. Was he a bad President?
MBA <--- nuff said on the booksmarts.
You can say the same for Bill Clinton. Was he a bad President?
MBA <--- nuff said on the booksmarts.
SurferH2O- when it came to strict policy- Clinton was the best president in my lifetime, hands down. He was a moderate, slightly hawkish in foriegn policy (basically continued and improved on the Goerge 1 policies) slightly left on social policies, and slightly right on fiscal policies- to me, the very best of each area. We sure could use Clinton again- I just hope Kerry is as good as Clinton- without the need for "some strange"
Bikerdad- Popeye listed it best- and it shows why his presidency is such a failure- and the only reason he even has a chance is because he sticks with the "wedge" issues that resonate so well with the bigots in our country - abortion and gay marriage, forcing christianity on others.
If GW only had his policies to debate as president- and folks had only his record as president to think about- it would be a super landslide election.
Bikerdad- Popeye listed it best- and it shows why his presidency is such a failure- and the only reason he even has a chance is because he sticks with the "wedge" issues that resonate so well with the bigots in our country - abortion and gay marriage, forcing christianity on others.
If GW only had his policies to debate as president- and folks had only his record as president to think about- it would be a super landslide election.
I'm glad the wedge issues were brought up, specifically the attempt on the part of the President to have a national law stating who can and can not be considered legally married.
When I heard G.W. Bush include this in his latest State of the Union address, it reminded me of a boy who was bringing home a miserable report card so he decided to "beef up" his standing with some irrelevant, extra credit stunt.
In a country with
Where is the leadership here? Where is the "compassionate conservatism"? What has this man done for us other than worsen the deficit and keep us in Iraq thanks to a "miscalculated" exit strategy?
Add to this the fact that the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Can you imagine what Clinton could have accomplished if he had had a House and Senate both controlled by Democrats?
George W. Bush's record speaks volumes for itself. That is why, I suspect, Bush needs those Swiftboat Veterans for Spite to distract from his record and make Kerry look bad.
John Kerry won't have to do much to be a better President than George Walker Bush.
When I heard G.W. Bush include this in his latest State of the Union address, it reminded me of a boy who was bringing home a miserable report card so he decided to "beef up" his standing with some irrelevant, extra credit stunt.
In a country with
- an astronomically high deficit
- 1 in 6 children living in poverty
- insufficient funds in state government coffers to observe federal mandates (read: education)
- the highest net job loss since Herbert Hoover
- an ongoing occupation where soldiers aren't allowed to go home after their enlistment periods are over
- a trade deficit where the U.S. imports far more goods from China than it exports (and with China being one of the worst nations for human rights violations)
- primary emergency responders getting laid off in a time of national tension regarding terrorism
- creation of a Department of Homeland Security without adequate funding (but wanting more money to go into the development of new nuclear weapons)
Where is the leadership here? Where is the "compassionate conservatism"? What has this man done for us other than worsen the deficit and keep us in Iraq thanks to a "miscalculated" exit strategy?
Add to this the fact that the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Can you imagine what Clinton could have accomplished if he had had a House and Senate both controlled by Democrats?
George W. Bush's record speaks volumes for itself. That is why, I suspect, Bush needs those Swiftboat Veterans for Spite to distract from his record and make Kerry look bad.
John Kerry won't have to do much to be a better President than George Walker Bush.
QUOTE
Bush isnt medically incompetent by any stretch of the imagination. I am just saying that he has a disorder and that some people think he is just plain dumb. I do not see him as any more or less of a president because of it.
His 'disorder' (which he denies having) has no bearing on my opinion of him. IF he does have a disorder, then he should seek help for it. Many other's have overcome it and are not considered 'idiots'. They learn to cope with it and find alternate ways of learning. He doesn't.
Other famous politicians with dyslexia include :
Winston Churchill.
King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.
Michael Heseltine.
Andrew Jackson.
Thomas Jefferson.
John F. Kennedy.
Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco.
Nelson Rockefeller.
Paul Wellstone,U.S. Senator.
Woodrow Wilson.
George Washington.
- source
I don't recall any of them being the complete bufoon our current leader is. They managed to overcome it, as did many others on that page. They speak (or spoke) in public, but don't have the voumes upon volumes of mis-speak that Bush does. I wonder how that is?
If he's not an idiot, he's a man that refuses to admit his problem and seek help with it. That's as bad in my opinion, and so either idea is a problem to me.
He claimed to be a uniter, not a divider. After four years of him, this country is as divided as ever. He failed, and I don't care why. Excuses can be made all day, but the bottom line is that he did not do what he claimed he would.
I don't know if Kerry will be any better. But he gives me hope, and he is the only real chance to get Bush out of office. It comes down to keeping the same horrible person in office or trying an unkown. When the known is horrible, only the unkown offers any hope at all. I know Bush won't do any better than he already has, or he would have done it by now.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Aug 30 2004, 12:36 AM)
I am just saying that he has a disorder and that some people think he is just plain dumb. I do not see him as any more or less of a president because of it.
Leder
Ok, Bush is dyslexic. What's that have to do with anything? Throughout my short life I have met a boatload of dyslexic people. Many of them are succesful businessmen or doctors, etc. Many politicians are dyslexic. In fact, Leder, many dyslexic people manage to portray themselves in a positive manner.
In fact....Bush used to be able to do that. I have a quote from an article in The Alantic where the author examines old debate taps of the two candidates--the Bush excerpt is from his 1994 Gubernatorial Debate against incumbent Ann Richards. The '94 Bush was eloquent and smooth:
QUOTE(The Atlantic)
This Bush was eloquent. He spoke quickly and easily. He rattled off complicated sentences and brought them to the right grammatical conclusions. He mishandled a word or two ("million" when he clearly meant "billion"; "stole" when he meant "sold), but fewer than most people would in an hour's debate. More striking, he did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones. "To lay out my juvenile-justice plan in a minute and a half is a hard task, but I will try to do so," he said fluently and with a smile midway through the debate, before beginning to list his principles.
<snip>
(the article now continues to cite Bush's ease of speaking and intelligenct debate tactics, and begins to compare the "Governor" Bush to the "President" Bush, and analyze the 'change' that occured):
"You never saw him in an awkward situation as governor," she told me. "You expected he'd know the right thing to say."
Obviously, Bush doesn't sound this way as President, and there is no one conclusive explanation for the change. I have read and listened to speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President's peculiar mode of speech--a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia, or some other disorder that makes him so uncomfortable when speaking off the cuff. The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate. George Lakoff tried to convince me that the change was intentional. As a way of showing deep-down NASCAR type manliness, according to Lakoff, Bush has deliberately made himself sound as clipped and tough as John Wayne. Moreover, in Lakoff's view, the authenticity of this stance depends on Bush's consistency in presenting it. So even if he is still capable of speaking with easy eloquence, he can't afford to let the mask slip.
Source: Fallows, James. The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 294, No. 1, pp 67-80, July/August 2004. (available online. I think you have to enter your email address to read it)
Emphasis added.
<snip>
(the article now continues to cite Bush's ease of speaking and intelligenct debate tactics, and begins to compare the "Governor" Bush to the "President" Bush, and analyze the 'change' that occured):
"You never saw him in an awkward situation as governor," she told me. "You expected he'd know the right thing to say."
Obviously, Bush doesn't sound this way as President, and there is no one conclusive explanation for the change. I have read and listened to speculations that there must be some organic basis for the President's peculiar mode of speech--a learning disability, a reading problem, dyslexia, or some other disorder that makes him so uncomfortable when speaking off the cuff. The main problem with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly articulate. George Lakoff tried to convince me that the change was intentional. As a way of showing deep-down NASCAR type manliness, according to Lakoff, Bush has deliberately made himself sound as clipped and tough as John Wayne. Moreover, in Lakoff's view, the authenticity of this stance depends on Bush's consistency in presenting it. So even if he is still capable of speaking with easy eloquence, he can't afford to let the mask slip.
Source: Fallows, James. The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 294, No. 1, pp 67-80, July/August 2004. (available online. I think you have to enter your email address to read it)
Emphasis added.
It's actually a great article that dissects the speaking style of both men, and is equally harsh on both. I highly, highly recommend either registering online to read it or picking up a copy--the entire issue is filled with election 2004 stuff.
So, the dyslexia is a non-issue. The fact is: Bush portrays himself as an idiot, and the world percieves him as an idiot. The bottom line is: I don't want the world to see the most obvious representation of my country as an idiot--even if he's a fake idiot! I don't want the Brits and Germans or even the French
to think we elected a moron--it makes me look bad! 
Now:
Who would make the better President and why?
To be fair: Bush has some good qualities--such as his ability to portray "strength". I think that's very important for a leader, and Bush does a fair job with that aspect.
However, I think Kerry would make a better President. I believe my beloved Bill said it best, "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values". Kerry to me seems to be a composite of the two. What some see as "flip-flopping" I see as wisdom and deliberation. This type of leadership fits into my worldview better than Bush's, and explains why I will be voting for him in the fall.
QUOTE
Add to this the fact that the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Can you imagine what Clinton could have accomplished if he had had a House and Senate both controlled by Democrats?
Yes, I can...and the thoughts send shivers up my spine...but that's another story...or is it?
QUOTE
That is why, I suspect, Bush needs those Swiftboat Veterans for Spite to distract from his record and make Kerry look bad.
And now, still more Democratic rhetoric.....
QUOTE
If he's not an idiot...
QUOTE
He claimed to be a uniter, not a divider.
Yes, and clearly you were very receptive to that possibility....
QUOTE
SurferH2O- when it came to strict policy- Clinton was the best president in my lifetime, hands down.
Then you must be a confirmed Republican now, because basically every policy Clinton passed was Republican policy (you even reference continuation of Bush's policies in your post).
QUOTE
I just hope Kerry is as good as Clinton
In all honesty, that is optimism at its most extreme....not a Clinton supporter, but you still had to admire him politically. I'm not even sure Kerry measures up to Gore in this regard....reminds me more of Dukakis than anyone else (speaking just in terms of political skill and overal charisma).
QUOTE
... and he is the only real chance to get Bush out of office.
And there we have it....the candidate running on not much beyond anti-someone-else sentiment....which can certainly get someone elected, granted, but then what? At the very least, I guess, that gives him an easy pass to meeting expectations, since there aren't any. Given that there will likely still be a Republican Congress, how would this change things much?
QUOTE
Furthermore, if connections are so powerful, if it can get one through Ivy League graduate programs, then why did Al Gore, purportedly a smarter man than Bush, wash out of two Ivy League graduate programs?
Things that make you go 'Hmmmmmmm'. Honestly, the discussion about Bush's intelligence, or lack thereof, is really been there, done that. It is not possible for anyone to be as dumb as Bush's critics claim him to be, and get to be President of the United States. You are under too big a magnifying glass, for far too long, for that to happen. Even if it were someone behind the scenes manipulating everything, you'd still have to be fairly smart to carry it off.
QUOTE
Where is the "compassionate conservatism"?
Uh-oh...a valid question....how did that work its way in here?
I think events overtook much possibility of exhibiting that during the last few years (he did work with Kennedy and others on the education bill). I myself am anxious to see how much this is exhibited during the convention, and am particularly interested in seeing what Bush says in his speech about this and other things going forward. If it doesn't get much mention, then this is indeed a very valid criticism.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 30 2004, 12:49 PM)
QUOTE
SurferH2O- when it came to strict policy- Clinton was the best president in my lifetime, hands down.
Then you must be a confirmed Republican now, because basically every policy Clinton passed was Republican policy (you even reference continuation of Bush's policies in your post).
Um... Clinton RAISED taxes and reduced spending increases and helped reduce our deficit spending. How are those Republican policy now that they've controlled Congress and the Presidency for the past couple of years?
As for the convention: the platform is filled with social conservative ideology -- amendments for this or that sin -- but the speakers will all be moderates. Funny how that works.
Hobbes
Things that make you go 'Hmmmmmmm'. Honestly, the discussion about Bush's intelligence, or lack thereof, is really been there, done that. It is not possible for anyone to be as dumb as Bush's critics claim him to be, and get to be President of the United States. You are under too big a magnifying glass, for far too long, for that to happen. Even if it were someone behind the scenes manipulating everything, you'd still have to be fairly smart to carry it off.
I would have to strongly disagree with that comment concerning "you are under too big a magnifying glass, for far too long".
Take his record from 1968 on:
1. He scores in the 25percentile for the Texas Air National Guard and passes up over 200 more eligible partipants and is accepted. He was less than bright at this stage and it is covered up by his Pappy and people of influence.
2. He presided over 2 failed oil companies and come out smiling like a rose. He wasn't displaying very much intelligence in those instances.
3. Takes money from Harken(in which he was a director and bailed out of company before the price plunged) and uses his influence to buy 1.8 % in Texas Rangers. Later after Texas Rangers are sold his profit is a 12.8%. Increase because of his name again. Didn't show any intelligence there,either.
4. Asked at a press conference if he had made any mistakes during his presidency and he comments that he can't think of one. I don't know of 1 person on this earth that hasn't made a mistake in the past 3 years. That remark didn't take much brain power, but it is forgotten.
5. Invaded Iraq(mislead or lied,take your pick) and had no long range plans for after invasion departure from Iraq.
I can't see in any of his history where George Bush has even an average IQ, but it doesn't seem to influence the majority of the people in the USA.
WHY??? Because of Karl Rove and the spin. Their best defense of poor old George Bush is a offense on the opposing candidate. The opposing candidate is so busy defending himself or herself they don't have time to ask George any questions.
That is the strategy of Karl Rove this year. Don't talk about the issues that count(economy,Iraq war, poverty,unemployed,environment,etc.). Lets talk about Vietnam which happened 30 years ago.
One last item. After 9/11, Bush's approval rate shot up through the roof. And now less than 3 years later he has lost at least 30-40 % of that. Now what kind of a normal intelligent person could do that. And still be President or CEO of a company. In a business of any sort your chances of survival would be low or non-existant.
But again, he is given a pass.
Need any more reasons?
QUOTE
Things that make you go 'Hmmmmmmm'. Honestly, the discussion about Bush's intelligence, or lack thereof, is really been there, done that. It is not possible for anyone to be as dumb as Bush's critics claim him to be, and get to be President of the United States. You are under too big a magnifying glass, for far too long, for that to happen. Even if it were someone behind the scenes manipulating everything, you'd still have to be fairly smart to carry it off.
I would have to strongly disagree with that comment concerning "you are under too big a magnifying glass, for far too long".
Take his record from 1968 on:
1. He scores in the 25percentile for the Texas Air National Guard and passes up over 200 more eligible partipants and is accepted. He was less than bright at this stage and it is covered up by his Pappy and people of influence.
2. He presided over 2 failed oil companies and come out smiling like a rose. He wasn't displaying very much intelligence in those instances.
3. Takes money from Harken(in which he was a director and bailed out of company before the price plunged) and uses his influence to buy 1.8 % in Texas Rangers. Later after Texas Rangers are sold his profit is a 12.8%. Increase because of his name again. Didn't show any intelligence there,either.
4. Asked at a press conference if he had made any mistakes during his presidency and he comments that he can't think of one. I don't know of 1 person on this earth that hasn't made a mistake in the past 3 years. That remark didn't take much brain power, but it is forgotten.
5. Invaded Iraq(mislead or lied,take your pick) and had no long range plans for after invasion departure from Iraq.
I can't see in any of his history where George Bush has even an average IQ, but it doesn't seem to influence the majority of the people in the USA.
WHY??? Because of Karl Rove and the spin. Their best defense of poor old George Bush is a offense on the opposing candidate. The opposing candidate is so busy defending himself or herself they don't have time to ask George any questions.
That is the strategy of Karl Rove this year. Don't talk about the issues that count(economy,Iraq war, poverty,unemployed,environment,etc.). Lets talk about Vietnam which happened 30 years ago.
One last item. After 9/11, Bush's approval rate shot up through the roof. And now less than 3 years later he has lost at least 30-40 % of that. Now what kind of a normal intelligent person could do that. And still be President or CEO of a company. In a business of any sort your chances of survival would be low or non-existant.
But again, he is given a pass.
Need any more reasons?
I will be voting for John Kerry in November, because I do like his character, and I agree with him on a few key issues. Economically, he is not my ideal candidate, but I appreciate many of his social/environmental views. I also oppose the patriot act, and I can relate to his position on Iraq. He may oppose the manner in which the war was waged, but he won't be pulling the plug on it.
In reality, I would like to vote for a Democrat that is a bit more fiscally conservative, but it seems like the candidates who are fiscally conservative, regardless of party, always have some sort of religious/social agenda that I can't agree with.
In reality, I would like to vote for a Democrat that is a bit more fiscally conservative, but it seems like the candidates who are fiscally conservative, regardless of party, always have some sort of religious/social agenda that I can't agree with.
In the Bush-Kerry debate, you only need to know one thing:
John Kerry volunteered for combat duty and served in action.
George W. Bush did not volunteer for combat duty nor did he serve in action.
Which would you rather have as your president?
It's pretty simple, really.
John Kerry volunteered for combat duty and served in action.
George W. Bush did not volunteer for combat duty nor did he serve in action.
Which would you rather have as your president?
It's pretty simple, really.
QUOTE(Ocean Islands @ Aug 30 2004, 02:46 PM)
In the Bush-Kerry debate, you only need to know one thing:
John Kerry volunteered for combat duty and served in action.
George W. Bush did not volunteer for combat duty nor did he serve in action.
Which would you rather have as your president? It's pretty simple, really.
John Kerry volunteered for combat duty and served in action.
George W. Bush did not volunteer for combat duty nor did he serve in action.
Which would you rather have as your president?
It's pretty simple, really. 
Well, in that case...My Uncle/My other Uncle/And My Cousin for president. Hey I know, pick a Swift Boat Vet for Truth to run for President, hey, they fought in Vietnam. I mean that's silly Ocean Islands, shouldn't we focus on little things like, oh, voting record, character, personality when deciding who is going to run the free world?
CP
Let's grant, just for the sake of argument, that Bush isn't "very smart", that his intellectual knives are the equivalent of cheap stamped steel from China, not forged French cutlery. That all he has is his name...
well,
damn!
Look how he's managed to leverage that! Of course, if you believe he's nothing more than a Manchurian Candidate, then he doesn't even get credit for that.
Kerry, btw, has used connections plenty himself, but I don't see anybody slighting him for that. I must, however, admit, that Kerry has done a better job of earning money than Bush. Kerry's managed to turn an investment into a few dozen roses and candlelit dinners into hundreds of millions of dollars.
Incidentally, those who ask "what did GW do for the Texas Rangers"? Well, I suppose he did what pretty much every minority owner does. Nada. Invested some money and sat there. That's what evil capitalist pigs do, even in Texas. Oh, he probably went out every once in while to put thorns in the shoes of the hot dog vendors so they'd move quicker, watered down the beer to increase profit margins, and made the equipment manager get the jock straps from China instead of America, but other than that...
Y'all enjoy, I'd love to see an alternate reality were we could observe how things play out if the results of the election were reversed.
well,
damn!
Look how he's managed to leverage that! Of course, if you believe he's nothing more than a Manchurian Candidate, then he doesn't even get credit for that.
Kerry, btw, has used connections plenty himself, but I don't see anybody slighting him for that. I must, however, admit, that Kerry has done a better job of earning money than Bush. Kerry's managed to turn an investment into a few dozen roses and candlelit dinners into hundreds of millions of dollars.
Incidentally, those who ask "what did GW do for the Texas Rangers"? Well, I suppose he did what pretty much every minority owner does. Nada. Invested some money and sat there. That's what evil capitalist pigs do, even in Texas. Oh, he probably went out every once in while to put thorns in the shoes of the hot dog vendors so they'd move quicker, watered down the beer to increase profit margins, and made the equipment manager get the jock straps from China instead of America, but other than that...
Y'all enjoy, I'd love to see an alternate reality were we could observe how things play out if the results of the election were reversed.
Well, yes, if you take it a bit too far, yes, it is silly. I didn't mean to imply that all combat veterans should run for president. I meant it as a comparison between these two men.
And also, I meant "In light of their achievements since the Vietnam War." I do think that this fact about the two men highlights their personalities in a focussed way which tells you all that you need to know -- but I won't spell that out as it seems a bit obvious.
And also, I meant "In light of their achievements since the Vietnam War." I do think that this fact about the two men highlights their personalities in a focussed way which tells you all that you need to know -- but I won't spell that out as it seems a bit obvious.
Kerry. I truly think Bush II will go down in history as one of the top three worst presidents ever. Leaving aside the specific policy decisions of the Bush administration, what I'm troubled most by about W is his seemingly total lack of intellectual curiosity. Clinton, whether you agreed with a lot of his policies or not, was undeniably a powerfully intelligent man that had a nuanced command of all his policy positions. Bush seems almost willfully ignorant of anything that's going on - you know, the whole "I don't read the papers" thing. It's as if his carefully constructed Born-again view of the world cannot withstand any complex information that contradicts its fundamental black-and-white-ness. I don't know what kind of POTUS Kerry might make, but I'm heartened by his ability to intellectually render both sides of an argument, even if it makes him look like a flip-flopper. Emerson's remark about "a foolish consistency" seems especially relevant in this case....
Dyslexia doesn't affect speech as far as I know.
My boss is dyslexic. He doesn't pause more often in speech than the average person. I know his dyslexia by letters he asks me to check. The White House is never hurting for speech writers.
You can develop apraxia in adulthood.
I don't think Bush had a stroke, nor do I think he was born a tomfool. I think he chose it. EH's Perle, O'Neil, Frum, and Laura quotes come from this Slate article:
In Bush's refusal to adapt the course when common sense and/or facts beg he reconsider a tunnel vision application of his policy and ideology the family avenger lowers the bar when the silly world doesn't obey Jesus.
I wouldn't be sure of that, PE. Democrat/Republican debate and contention is as different as their ideology. IMO Democrats like to fancy themselves free thinkers and are less likely to check their squabbles with the world looking on, Republicans sacrifice individuality in a trade-off for strength in numbers.
If I had to make a compsarison I'd say Republicans are baatezu, Democrats are tanar'ri, and the Press of course are yugoloths. (D&D Planescape fans will know.
)
Do you mean he was a... uniter? Clinton did pass a lot of Republican measures, though he certainly disagreed with many domestic and fiscal policies and used veto power. That happened often enough or I wouldn't remember Congress' rancorous accusations of partisanship and daring to "defy" the will of the People. Back then a Democrat in the White House forced Republicans to act like conservatives, who drafted conservative measures, in order to distinguish themselves from their rival and not just stick out as hardline Republicans. Instead of nuts and bolts debate pressuring fiscally conservative Republicans to go along with the president's initiative to project and maintain Republican dominance in politics is what we have today.
Who would make the better President and why?
Kerry because I agree with his platform on security, energy, HSD (though I haven't read anything indicating he won't pass Patriot II), education, environment, and abortion. Health care and the economy are tougher sells. I think Clinton swore in on an economic upswing from GHB's "biggest tax increase in history." Initiatives can help normalize an economic downward trend but not radically alter its course. I care about Kerry's Vietnam service about as much as I care to know God speaks to Bush.
Will Kerry get everything he wants? Maybe, maybe not. But it's the same chance I took with Clinton and willing to take it again.
QUOTE
dyslexia
: a variable often familial learning disability involving difficulties in acquiring and processing language that is typically manifested by a lack of proficiency in reading, spelling, and writing
-- m-w.com
: a variable often familial learning disability involving difficulties in acquiring and processing language that is typically manifested by a lack of proficiency in reading, spelling, and writing
-- m-w.com
My boss is dyslexic. He doesn't pause more often in speech than the average person. I know his dyslexia by letters he asks me to check. The White House is never hurting for speech writers.
You can develop apraxia in adulthood.
QUOTE
Certainly, many people who have acquired apraxia due to stroke or other neurological damage in adulthood may have a great deal of automatic speech, which they produce with no trouble at all. Thus, they may seem to be more impaired in terms of volitional (nonspeech, nonfunctional) oral movements than in speech – until they try to produce an unfamiliar word or a novel sentence. This makes sense: over a lifetime, speech becomes more and more automatic and therefore less and less planning is required.
-- Apraxia FAQ
-- Apraxia FAQ
I don't think Bush had a stroke, nor do I think he was born a tomfool. I think he chose it. EH's Perle, O'Neil, Frum, and Laura quotes come from this Slate article:
QUOTE
Bush's assorted malapropisms, solecisms, gaffes, spoonerisms, and truisms tend to imply that his lack of fluency in English is tantamount to an absence of intelligence. But as we all know, the inarticulate can be shrewd, the fluent fatuous...
What's more, calling the president a cretin absolves him of responsibility. Like Reagan, Bush avoids blame for all manner of contradictions, implausible assertions, and outright lies by appearing an amiable dunce. If he knows not what he does, blame goes to the three puppeteers, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. It also breeds sympathy. We wouldn't laugh at FDR because he couldn't walk. Is it less cruel to laugh at GWB because he can't talk?...
But if "numskull" is an imprecise description of the president, it is not altogether inaccurate. Bush may not have been born stupid, but he has achieved stupidity, and now he wears it as a badge of honor. What makes mocking this president fair as well as funny is that Bush is, or at least once was, capable of learning, reading, and thinking... Instead he chose to coast, for most of his life, on name, charm, good looks, and the easy access to capital afforded by family connections...
Dubya polished off his old man's greatest enemy, Saddam, but only by lampooning 41's accomplishment of coalition-building in the first Gulf War. Bush led the country to war on false pretenses and neglected to plan the occupation that would inevitably follow. A more knowledgeable and engaged president might have questioned the quality of the evidence about Iraq's supposed weapons programs. One who preferred to be intelligent might have asked about the possibility of an unfriendly reception. Instead, Bush rolled the dice. His budget-busting tax cuts exemplify a similar phenomenon, driven by an alternate set of ideologues.
As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool.
What's more, calling the president a cretin absolves him of responsibility. Like Reagan, Bush avoids blame for all manner of contradictions, implausible assertions, and outright lies by appearing an amiable dunce. If he knows not what he does, blame goes to the three puppeteers, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. It also breeds sympathy. We wouldn't laugh at FDR because he couldn't walk. Is it less cruel to laugh at GWB because he can't talk?...
But if "numskull" is an imprecise description of the president, it is not altogether inaccurate. Bush may not have been born stupid, but he has achieved stupidity, and now he wears it as a badge of honor. What makes mocking this president fair as well as funny is that Bush is, or at least once was, capable of learning, reading, and thinking... Instead he chose to coast, for most of his life, on name, charm, good looks, and the easy access to capital afforded by family connections...
Dubya polished off his old man's greatest enemy, Saddam, but only by lampooning 41's accomplishment of coalition-building in the first Gulf War. Bush led the country to war on false pretenses and neglected to plan the occupation that would inevitably follow. A more knowledgeable and engaged president might have questioned the quality of the evidence about Iraq's supposed weapons programs. One who preferred to be intelligent might have asked about the possibility of an unfriendly reception. Instead, Bush rolled the dice. His budget-busting tax cuts exemplify a similar phenomenon, driven by an alternate set of ideologues.
As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool.
In Bush's refusal to adapt the course when common sense and/or facts beg he reconsider a tunnel vision application of his policy and ideology the family avenger lowers the bar when the silly world doesn't obey Jesus.
QUOTE
To convince the American public and a skeptical world, senior officials strongly suggested that Iraqis would welcome liberation and that Iraq was a relatively wealthy country that could—unlike Afghanistan—pay for its own reconstruction.
Now that he is asking for $87 billion from Congress, those high expectations have come back to haunt the president and his aides, who now argue that we should all have very much lower expectations about what post-war Iraq should look like...
Those comparisons with post-war Germany resurface whenever the administration feels the need to lower expectations and re-balance the media coverage of the continued bloodshed in Iraq.
-- Newsweek
Now that he is asking for $87 billion from Congress, those high expectations have come back to haunt the president and his aides, who now argue that we should all have very much lower expectations about what post-war Iraq should look like...
Those comparisons with post-war Germany resurface whenever the administration feels the need to lower expectations and re-balance the media coverage of the continued bloodshed in Iraq.
-- Newsweek
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Aug 30 2004, 06:03 AM)
Add to this the fact that the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Can you imagine what Clinton could have accomplished if he had had a House and Senate both controlled by Democrats?
I wouldn't be sure of that, PE. Democrat/Republican debate and contention is as different as their ideology. IMO Democrats like to fancy themselves free thinkers and are less likely to check their squabbles with the world looking on, Republicans sacrifice individuality in a trade-off for strength in numbers.
If I had to make a compsarison I'd say Republicans are baatezu, Democrats are tanar'ri, and the Press of course are yugoloths. (D&D Planescape fans will know.
)QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 30 2004, 12:49 PM)
Then you must be a confirmed Republican now, because basically every policy Clinton passed was Republican policy (you even reference continuation of Bush's policies in your post).
Do you mean he was a... uniter? Clinton did pass a lot of Republican measures, though he certainly disagreed with many domestic and fiscal policies and used veto power. That happened often enough or I wouldn't remember Congress' rancorous accusations of partisanship and daring to "defy" the will of the People. Back then a Democrat in the White House forced Republicans to act like conservatives, who drafted conservative measures, in order to distinguish themselves from their rival and not just stick out as hardline Republicans. Instead of nuts and bolts debate pressuring fiscally conservative Republicans to go along with the president's initiative to project and maintain Republican dominance in politics is what we have today.
Who would make the better President and why?
Kerry because I agree with his platform on security, energy, HSD (though I haven't read anything indicating he won't pass Patriot II), education, environment, and abortion. Health care and the economy are tougher sells. I think Clinton swore in on an economic upswing from GHB's "biggest tax increase in history." Initiatives can help normalize an economic downward trend but not radically alter its course. I care about Kerry's Vietnam service about as much as I care to know God speaks to Bush.
Will Kerry get everything he wants? Maybe, maybe not. But it's the same chance I took with Clinton and willing to take it again.
I don't think Bush is unintelligent, so I won't address that portion of your post, Bikerdad, but this statement is bizarre.
First of all, Teresa Heinz and John Kerry have a prenuptial agreement, and they keep their marital assets seperate, but do you really think that a few dozen roses and candlelit dinners is all that it takes to get the attention of an intelligent woman who can manage hundreds of millions of dollars effectively?
Teresa Heinz sees something special in John Kerry, and while there are many people who want to take their relationship and paint a portrait of Kerry as a money grubbing politician. I don't buy it. If that were the case, why would he bother to sign a prenup?
QUOTE(Bikerdad)
I must, however, admit, that Kerry has done a better job of earning money than Bush. Kerry's managed to turn an investment into a few dozen roses and candlelit dinners into hundreds of millions of dollars.
First of all, Teresa Heinz and John Kerry have a prenuptial agreement, and they keep their marital assets seperate, but do you really think that a few dozen roses and candlelit dinners is all that it takes to get the attention of an intelligent woman who can manage hundreds of millions of dollars effectively?
Teresa Heinz sees something special in John Kerry, and while there are many people who want to take their relationship and paint a portrait of Kerry as a money grubbing politician. I don't buy it. If that were the case, why would he bother to sign a prenup?
QUOTE(Lesly @ Aug 30 2004, 02:26 PM)
Dyslexia doesn't affect speech as far as I know.
Dyslexia can take any number of forms. Bush might be verbally dyslexic or have some problem reading from a teleprompter.
There’s an interesting book entitled Bush on the Couch by Justin A. Frank, a professor of clinical psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center since 1980. Frank discusses dyslexia in the Bush family in general and in George W. Bush in particular.
Here’s a quote from a page on dyslexia.
QUOTE
A person with a SLD learns at their own level and pace, while excelling in at least one area. Frequently, they will be inconsistent in their daily tasks and abilities, such as spelling a word one day and not the next day. Some of their experiences are difficulties with concentration, perception, memory, verbal skills (oral and/or textual), abstract reasoning, hand-eye coordination, social adjustment, low grades, underachievement, and expression. Often, people with SLDs have been considered lazy, rebellious, class clowns, unmotivated, misfits, or of low intelligence. These misconceptions, without understanding the SLD's effect on the person's life, lead to rejection, isolation, feelings of inferiority, discouragement, and low self-esteem.
http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/UBNRP/Dyslexia/
Firstly, If I thought Bushes policies were excellent for the country, I wouldn't have a problem voting for him if he misunderestimated a couple of words.
Now, if I know Dyslexia correctly, we can give him a break on some verbal speeches. This might include improper syntax, putting words in the wrong order, etc. Examples of this from Bush would be:
"I understand small Business Growth, I was one." (was and had)
"We cannot allow terrorist and rouge nations hold this nation hostile, or hold our allies hostile." (hostage/hostile)
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family." (Misword, confusion, or something)
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" (Are/is)
However, Dyslexia cannot be used as an excuse were ideas are confused or messed up. In that case, the syntax of the sentence should be correct, but the idea of the sentence was odd (or hilarious, as you prefer). Examples of this would include:
"The future will be better tomorrow."
"Its clearly a budget, its got alot of numbers in it."
"It's not the pollution thats harming our environment, its the impurities in our water and air that are doing it."
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
I don't think we could use Dyslexia to give Bush a pass on these.
Now, if I know Dyslexia correctly, we can give him a break on some verbal speeches. This might include improper syntax, putting words in the wrong order, etc. Examples of this from Bush would be:
"I understand small Business Growth, I was one." (was and had)
"We cannot allow terrorist and rouge nations hold this nation hostile, or hold our allies hostile." (hostage/hostile)
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family." (Misword, confusion, or something)
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" (Are/is)
However, Dyslexia cannot be used as an excuse were ideas are confused or messed up. In that case, the syntax of the sentence should be correct, but the idea of the sentence was odd (or hilarious, as you prefer). Examples of this would include:
"The future will be better tomorrow."
"Its clearly a budget, its got alot of numbers in it."
"It's not the pollution thats harming our environment, its the impurities in our water and air that are doing it."
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
I don't think we could use Dyslexia to give Bush a pass on these.
I already posted on the dyslexia issue earlier in this thread, but I want to repeat it because I don't think it's gotten through.
According to the
article I read, Bush has only recently developed these speech 'abnormalities'.
Which makes sense to me when you consider how none of his family has the cheesy, fake Texas twang that he does!
QUOTE(BecomingHuman)
However, Dyslexia cannot be used as an excuse were ideas are confused or messed up. In that case, the syntax of the sentence should be correct, but the idea of the sentence was odd (or hilarious, as you prefer). Examples of this would include:
"The future will be better tomorrow."
"Its clearly a budget, its got alot of numbers in it."
"It's not the pollution thats harming our environment, its the impurities in our water and air that are doing it."
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
I don't think we could use Dyslexia to give Bush a pass on these.
"The future will be better tomorrow."
"Its clearly a budget, its got alot of numbers in it."
"It's not the pollution thats harming our environment, its the impurities in our water and air that are doing it."
"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
I don't think we could use Dyslexia to give Bush a pass on these.
According to the
article I read, Bush has only recently developed these speech 'abnormalities'.
Which makes sense to me when you consider how none of his family has the cheesy, fake Texas twang that he does!
I've already made my observation about Kerry's poor showing in handling the Swifties, but here's another sharp take on an aspect of his candidacy that I didn't develop here, but had pondered. However, I just can't say it clearer than this:
Bonds of War, Bonds of Brotherhood
QUOTE
John Kerry has based his campaign on two things, imagined heroism in Viet Nam and purported skill at building alliances.
...
What I find more troubling are his many personal calls to all his former fellow officers, using his lauded diplomatic skills and personal persuasion to stop their scurrilous attacks and return them to a more civil discourse. Sweeter than honey dripping from his tongue must've poured forth his flowing words; the powerful orator from Massachusetts, the nuanced negotiator, the resolver of conflicts both large and small. He pleaded with his fellow officers, arguing his sound reasons and loyal ties with these, his brothers in arms, his matchless peers, and honorable men one and all. Their reply was uniform and sincere.
PARAPHRASED FOR CIVILITY:
"Eat *crap* and die, you *pimple* faced traitorous appeasement weasel."
...
What I find more troubling are his many personal calls to all his former fellow officers, using his lauded diplomatic skills and personal persuasion to stop their scurrilous attacks and return them to a more civil discourse. Sweeter than honey dripping from his tongue must've poured forth his flowing words; the powerful orator from Massachusetts, the nuanced negotiator, the resolver of conflicts both large and small. He pleaded with his fellow officers, arguing his sound reasons and loyal ties with these, his brothers in arms, his matchless peers, and honorable men one and all. Their reply was uniform and sincere.
PARAPHRASED FOR CIVILITY:
"Eat *crap* and die, you *pimple* faced traitorous appeasement weasel."
Bonds of War, Bonds of Brotherhood
I will admit that environmental issues is the first thing i look at in terms of people running for positions of power and or responsibility. I feel that this is a fixation i can share with the current american public in relation to terror. This again i will use to build on why kerry runs his military action as someting to get hired with all the patriotic themes running right now. Do i care if he served or not, not really, save it might give him empethy on those that are sent into a war, and what all that can be and mean, for those directly in contact to the family that is involved with the people sent, i am not a big fan of send others to the fight type of thought.
Kerry to me is a moderate, and looks for a middle ground on issues. When it comes to making a decision, his has swayed now and in the past, that could mean many things to a viewer, but its not like kerry is the only human that can change her or his mind on something. i know that money can buy you things with his position, but is thier any politician free from this in many forms, and in the end money is muscle for the most part. Though one can look into what things he has worked for like this to make opinion on him, like looser biomedical laws in certain areas.
Overall about a year ago i picked kerry for president and McCain as v.p on this site. it almost came true and would have been nice. Not to down bush again, though i feel bush is a true threat to many things and this shows with his history, not only as president but as human in most things he touched. Bush has never had to work for much anything and has had most of his life handed to him, and like in terms of being a president. He has that action figure type appeal, like a certain actor politician in california, he has that last name and those connections that will and do and did use him to enable thier desires. Bush also has not positive plans for anything environmental, or in terms of international relations, another horrible thing to think of in terms of this administration, and how he destroys america by how he works his voteing base and issues, from emotion only really, its in his pre-made speeches that he can never recreate when allowed to talk.
I dont think kerry would be such a false leader really, and more to the point his actions and those around him will be far more visable and overall less hiden then with the current administration. I am sorry something about blocking probes and secret meetings just dont sit well with me. The whole denial of information reports pre 9-11 then blameing it on the same people that tried to give the reports is sad at best. This then relates to the whole lack of action to "terror" prior to anything 9-11. I also doubt kerry will say he loves the military while attempts to cut thier benefits. Also i doubt kerry will allow fundie religous types to be a force in government. To his plans and so on i guess would be a real ground for reasons why, though overall my opinion is he is the lesser of two evils really.
Kerry to me is a moderate, and looks for a middle ground on issues. When it comes to making a decision, his has swayed now and in the past, that could mean many things to a viewer, but its not like kerry is the only human that can change her or his mind on something. i know that money can buy you things with his position, but is thier any politician free from this in many forms, and in the end money is muscle for the most part. Though one can look into what things he has worked for like this to make opinion on him, like looser biomedical laws in certain areas.
Overall about a year ago i picked kerry for president and McCain as v.p on this site. it almost came true and would have been nice. Not to down bush again, though i feel bush is a true threat to many things and this shows with his history, not only as president but as human in most things he touched. Bush has never had to work for much anything and has had most of his life handed to him, and like in terms of being a president. He has that action figure type appeal, like a certain actor politician in california, he has that last name and those connections that will and do and did use him to enable thier desires. Bush also has not positive plans for anything environmental, or in terms of international relations, another horrible thing to think of in terms of this administration, and how he destroys america by how he works his voteing base and issues, from emotion only really, its in his pre-made speeches that he can never recreate when allowed to talk.
I dont think kerry would be such a false leader really, and more to the point his actions and those around him will be far more visable and overall less hiden then with the current administration. I am sorry something about blocking probes and secret meetings just dont sit well with me. The whole denial of information reports pre 9-11 then blameing it on the same people that tried to give the reports is sad at best. This then relates to the whole lack of action to "terror" prior to anything 9-11. I also doubt kerry will say he loves the military while attempts to cut thier benefits. Also i doubt kerry will allow fundie religous types to be a force in government. To his plans and so on i guess would be a real ground for reasons why, though overall my opinion is he is the lesser of two evils really.
Looking at the poll numbers here on this site, with the vote almost 2-1 for Kerry- and knowing how well informed the folks on this site seem to be- it re-enforces what Clinton said on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart "When poeple think , Democrats win- with wedge issues- and single issue candiddates- Republicans win".
If you compare record to record, without the silly side issues- Kerry wins hands down- he is a more complete person, that has accomplished everything under his own power and intellect- whereas GW has never really accomplished anything without major family pull.
If you compare record to record, without the silly side issues- Kerry wins hands down- he is a more complete person, that has accomplished everything under his own power and intellect- whereas GW has never really accomplished anything without major family pull.
Cruising Ram... ROFL! You got me laughing hard. That is a serious jump to a conclusion that fits your ideals.
If you honestly think that the people that post here are more informed than a huge amount of people that simply do not post on politcal boards, then you are engaging in some elitism.
Perhaps, Liberals like yourself make politics your religion and posting your opinions on a Political Board are much more important to you than it is to Conservatives. Thus the bias and the lopsided poll results which are out of step with the general public occur.
I know I will get attacked by liberals for this post. I am not a GOP apologist. But I posted the paragraph above to illustrate the absurdity of Cruising Ram's post. Could there be a much more likely reason for the poll results?
If you honestly think that the people that post here are more informed than a huge amount of people that simply do not post on politcal boards, then you are engaging in some elitism.
Perhaps, Liberals like yourself make politics your religion and posting your opinions on a Political Board are much more important to you than it is to Conservatives. Thus the bias and the lopsided poll results which are out of step with the general public occur.
I know I will get attacked by liberals for this post. I am not a GOP apologist. But I posted the paragraph above to illustrate the absurdity of Cruising Ram's post. Could there be a much more likely reason for the poll results?
Are you kidding? Do you honestly think most voters are all that well informed? Though I think GW has, at the very least, galvanized some to find out more about issues- but the Swift boat liars are a classic example- anyone that believes that crap is seriously uninformed- but poeple take it at face value. This is why negative campaigning works so well- because, if there were a real debate on the issues and records, once again, Kerry wins hands down.
So yes, I would say most on this board are incredibly more informed than your average voter, and that is not elitism, just realism.
So yes, I would say most on this board are incredibly more informed than your average voter, and that is not elitism, just realism.
This thread is getting far too personal. Stick to the issues and drop the condescension and belittling tone.
TOPIC:
Who would make the better President and why?
TOPIC:
Who would make the better President and why?
I find that when I am critical of Conservatives most of them take it, digest it, and return with a fair exchange. If I am critical of Liberals I get lambasted... as I predicted by the way. I just knew it from past experience on boards. I apologize as I was not trying to tweak anyone.
I have reserved my vote until the debates are over. Unless something extra-ordinary happens after the debates... but no last minute Gotchas will work on me. I was leaning towards Kerry, but as it stands now I am back to even. If the GOP continues with such a compelling convention they may have tipped the scales a bit.
Those all important debates will definitely have an impact.
Ram... do you have any sources for this?
I have reserved my vote until the debates are over. Unless something extra-ordinary happens after the debates... but no last minute Gotchas will work on me. I was leaning towards Kerry, but as it stands now I am back to even. If the GOP continues with such a compelling convention they may have tipped the scales a bit.
Those all important debates will definitely have an impact.
Ram... do you have any sources for this?
QUOTE
So yes, I would say most on this board are incredibly more informed than your average voter, and that is not elitism, just realism.
By the way another easy and fair conclusion to draw from the poll is:
The board here has more Left leaning posters, thus the volume of left leaning posts will outweigh those from the right.
Assumptions made to get to this conclusion:
Most people voting for Kerry lean to the left.
Most people voting for Bush lean to the right.
Posters from both sides post about the same average number of posts.
Just a bit of information I found interesting and thought I would share. It's not a good, bad, etc... it is just what it is.
The board here has more Left leaning posters, thus the volume of left leaning posts will outweigh those from the right.
Assumptions made to get to this conclusion:
Most people voting for Kerry lean to the left.
Most people voting for Bush lean to the right.
Posters from both sides post about the same average number of posts.
Just a bit of information I found interesting and thought I would share. It's not a good, bad, etc... it is just what it is.
SurferH2O, there is no need to post twice in a row.......please use the EDIT button to revise or add to your post if no one has posted after you.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.