's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

George Bush: Menace, or just a moron?(80 posts)

George Bush: Menace, or just a moron?cory
Nov 9, 2001 8:32 AM
It's a slow morning...just thought I'd throw that out here and see what turns up.
uh-oh, the start of another page-hogging political flame war nmJs Haiku Shop
Nov 9, 2001 8:38 AM
Stupid is as stupid doesPeace
Nov 12, 2001 11:48 AM
re: George Bush: Menace, or just a moron?Jon
Nov 9, 2001 8:42 AM
Cory, Since your post obviously implies a negative opinion of Bush, without getting into an
elaborate critique of his policies or leadership style, just what would you be doing if you
were in his shoes? Seriously, I think that is one of the questions one has to address when
criticizing someone in a position of responsibility who has to deal with complex, near insoluble

P.S. I'm not a Republican, and I do not vote in U.S. elections. So I'm not particularly partisan either way.
Now THAT is a lame theory...jtolleson
Nov 9, 2001 9:05 AM
we can't criticize political leaders before we give a detailed analysis of what we'd do in their shoes? Sheesh.

That's like "don't criticize [unnamed famous athlete] unless you can do better." Lame.

ANYONE who saw George Bush's insipid performance at his first live press conference (where speechwriters couldn't save him) had to realize that he's out of his element.

I can give him HUGE credit for surrounding himself with fabulously talented people. In that respect, the country is in good hands (Colin Powell, Dick Cheney to start) but not because of any true talents of Georgie.
Talk Is CheapJon
Nov 9, 2001 11:48 AM
Everyone loves to be a Monday morning, armchair quarterback. So call someone stupid, incompetent,
or whatever, until you yourself are faced with similar options. I don't think the theory's lame.
I'm just challenging critics to some responsible criticism, and to separate image from reality and
actual decision making. From a distance, over the years I've watched the media create horribly
distorted (in my opinion) perceptions of such various figures as Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.
Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, in spite of some outrageously unconstitutional behaviour,
has practically become an icon in the public mind, based largely on his presentational abilities.
Any potential course of action open to an American president in the present circumstances
probably has huge downsides, depending on one's perspective.

One final point, as a chief executive, if he's smart enough to surround himself with competent
people, is he really that stupid, or just a poor orator and salesman? Are you looking for a good
actor or a good CEO?
Nov 10, 2001 4:13 PM
Methinks this debate is waaaay to personal to you.

My opinion stands, and YOU sir should probably get a life.
he's the turbanatorpeloton
Nov 11, 2001 11:40 AM
Didn't anyone else learn from their folks that it isn't nice to talk about politics and religion in public, or criticize someone without walking in their shoes? Free speach is great, but it carries the responsiblity of thinking before one opens their mouth. Anyone else notice all these political conversations always end up with name calling and little more? Maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it....

Anyway, check out the turbanator.
Nov 12, 2001 2:12 AM
just like GB

there are plenty of people whose lives I don't need to experience/walk in their shoes to know a few things about them - crack addicts, fascists, Republicans, Communists, New Romantics, Slipknot fans; the list is long and colourful...

anyways if the criteria to have a discussion is first hand experience then most people's discussions would be fairly limited -and how would elections/campaigns be if second hand knowledge is excluded?

thinking before opening the mouth is good - but it's quite clear that GB is a moron - we can all base an opinion on what the guy has done and how the guy presents himself - I know you're not saying I have to be GB to have an opinion on GB - but I don't get the rest of it - do we not now have enough info./basis to have a legitimate opinion on GB and if not when will we?

political discussion and (associated) name calling is fun sometimes

BTW nice turbanator pic
Nov 12, 2001 7:10 AM
Having an opinion is fine. I don't always agree with our politicians, and have no problem expressing that when I feel I can convey the thought intelligently from an informed basis. I mean, I didn't vote for Bush but I find it hard to criticize him too much in light of current events because I'm pretty sure I couldn't do his job any better. I guess what I was trying to say was just that freedom of speech is a right and a responsibility. We have the right to say what we want, but I feel a responsibility to personally govern what comes out of my mouth. Nothing really more than that.

I also found that pic, and found it humorous enought to share. :)
Nov 14, 2001 6:06 AM
opinions are like assholes. we all have them and they all stink.

also, if you don't vote, shut the hell up in a political discussion. And who would you rather have Gore and Albright? lets not forget about Nader???
Testy ad hominems ... Booooringjtolleson
Nov 14, 2001 11:30 AM
I think what you meant to say was "opinions are like bicycles. Everyone here has one, and they should all be treated with respect." Disagreeing without being a jackass, for example, would be a good start.

And who said anything about not voting? I've not missed an election since my 18th birthday (19 years ago).

You're entitled to disagree, but keep the flaming in the aol chatrooms, okay?
I agree - disagree respectfullyDog
Nov 14, 2001 11:41 AM
There are some people's opinions expressed here that drive me absolutely nuts. I just want to scream and call them idiots. No doubt others think the same about some of mine.

But, in civilized society, which I'd like to think we are a part of, we try to express opinions without attacking people, without calling others "morons," and in a decent tone. It's called respect. If you don't show respect for others, don't expect it in return.

A forum where people sit around and call each other names is pretty useless. An elevated level of dialogue is much more interesting.


I guess I'm "ad hominemophobic" :-) nmDog
Nov 14, 2001 11:44 AM
LOL I love that...jtolleson
Nov 14, 2001 5:47 PM
soon I shall plagiarize it elsewhere and take full credit!

: )
Yup - No "Tigishness". nmnm
Nov 15, 2001 4:20 AM
it beats being a coward like YOUTig
Dec 7, 2001 1:42 PM
I could care less what you think of me. I'm secure enough to be myself. Thank God I'm nothing like you.
Are you excludingmuncher
Nov 9, 2001 8:42 AM
Him being a menacing moron? Just want to check the ground before everyone starts ;~)
maybe he's a...4bykn
Nov 9, 2001 11:18 AM
Moronic menace!
re: George Bush: Menace, or just a moron?MJ
Nov 9, 2001 8:45 AM
he's both - people in a time of crisis seem to forget that whatever he says, he's still pretty dumb - I think it's funny that most Americans didn't even vote for him yet are stuck with him parading around and meeting people... and to future flamers don't get upset about this being 'anti-American' it's what most Americans thought when they voted apparently

I guess that's why he enlisted Blair - he needed at least one head of state on side who could function with some grace and intellect in a time of crisis - it's nice that the UK sent both their planes to Afghanistan as well

very entertaining post indeed
Err, actuallymuncher
Nov 9, 2001 8:54 AM
The second plane was brorrowed from the French - don't tell anyone - they were told it was only going to do 1/2 an hours at an airshow in December...
quick name five countries more stupid than the FrenchMJ
Nov 9, 2001 9:06 AM
you can't really call a plane 'French' when all they do is paint it!

clever ruse about the air show in December - don't they know that in December there is no daylight in the UK?
French people are stupid
OK ok, umm, umm, yeah - here we go...muncher
Nov 9, 2001 9:14 AM
1) Guinea Bissau (stupid name)
2) St Vincent and the Grenadines (sounds like a dodgy '50s one-hit wonder band)
3) Zimbabwe (cos they are always gona be last in the que for anything, unlike Afghanistan (who by unfortunate ahphabetical happenstance are 1st in the que for bombing right now))
4) Algeria (like France, but without the nice bits (wherever they might be))
5) Djibouti (no idea, but sounds like a likely candidate).

my listMJ
Nov 9, 2001 9:33 AM
1) Utah - I know it's not a country but come on really now, Mormons call non-Mormons 'Gentiles'
2) Chile - it's food not a country (impressive military uniforms though)
3) Greece - who ever said that Europe didn't have the third world hasn't been to Greece
4) The Gambia - like it's talking about itself in the third person - 'The Muncher' - it'll be mentioning it's IQ score and employment history to add even more gravitas next - ridiculous (see also The Netherlands)
5) Zimbabwe was on my list too! what a coincidence... but it's on mine for different reasons - it should still be called Rhodesia - you can hardly keep track of things these days...
Ok, but now..muncher
Nov 9, 2001 9:41 AM
name 5 poeple who think they have an I.Q. greater than 128, AND tell the world about it.

1) Correct.
2) Ummm..
3) See 2.
LOL-"name 5 poeple who think they have an I.Q. greater than 128"MJ
Nov 9, 2001 9:52 AM
careful now - this might be perceived as attacking someone because of their government's actions - I love 'patriots' and their handy, self serving catch phrases - wrapping a bad argument and poor logic in a reasonable symbol doesn't improve the argument - it just diminishes the symbol...
How dare you..muncher
Nov 9, 2001 10:02 AM
speak of any symbol being diminished. There are no symbols in the world less diminished than one that hasn't been diminished as much as the others have been diminished. And I'm not afraid to say it, even if you aren't. Or something.
trying to elicit a response? keep on trying, little boysTig
Nov 9, 2001 12:18 PM
You lads are entertaining! LMFAO
glad you enjoyed it! - nm :-)MJ
Nov 10, 2001 2:16 AM
Most people didn't vote for himKristin
Nov 9, 2001 9:55 AM
Okay, stoopid is as stoopid does--and I'll give that to George. He's done lots to earn the title. But still, what a stoopid statement for you to make. "...most american's didn't even vote for him..." Did you sleep through last years elections? I seem to recall that approx. half of the American's who didn't vote for Buchanan voted for Bush. Remember this little debate regarding a the election because it was so close. (Any argument about the actual numbers would be pure speculation. We'll never know who really won.) On the bright side, something had to bring the polls into the 20th century. Its about time, new millenia and all.
Nov 9, 2001 9:59 AM
Unless over 50% of Americans (or at least those entitled to vote) voted for him, the statement is true?

It's like the UK - the govt usually gets around 25-30% of the "real" vote.
Most people didn't vote for himMJ
Nov 9, 2001 11:52 AM
on the contrary - I understood the popular vote was decidedly in Gore's favour - it was only the electoral vote in Fla. that resulted in Dubya, and his 'downhome - don't call me a liar or I'll kick your ass' ways being put into office. is that not right?

I know that the electoral college is how it's done - but it would appear that the majority did not vote for Bush - and yet he's still taken an extremely conservative stance on most things not 11/9 related (which should be examined separately) - it's like he thinks he's got a legitimate mandate - drilling in Alaska, the Attorney General (what a joke!), Kyoto, a missle shield (which is the most laughable, bottomless pit of money excuse for a project you could dream up - terrorists aren't going to put a bomb on a missle - they're gonna put it in a backpack! - reliance on technology can blind even the brightest)
I won't argueKristin
Nov 9, 2001 12:15 PM
with anything you've said about Bush. But I do believe that the popular vote was also very tight. I could be wrong, I rely on the media for my information and, know... :-0

Personally, cavemanship is starting to look good... Compared to living in a society were, every 4 years, I choose which corrupt polititian I want in office... and daily I fight through the web of fantastic lies woven by the media... and monthly avoid debt slavery while trying to support this house of cards they call an economy. Then again...cavemen don't bathe. Though...after a few weeks you don't notice the smell anymore... We've got Bush for 3 more years.

Are there any caves in California?
If I'm not mistaken...Erik W
Nov 9, 2001 3:48 PM
which I very well could be, I think Gore had two to three hundred thousand more of the popular vote country wide. The last I heard on the Florida recount was that Bush had actually been farther ahead then he was before all the recounting fuss started.
OK, time to compare IQ'snova
Nov 11, 2001 4:21 PM
Everyone is talking about how dumb President Bush is, or how dumb someone is for buying a Colnago as their first bike, or how dumb they are for buying a Colnago at all, etc.

So the next time someone feels the need to call someone else dumb in this forum, whether it be another poster or a politician who doesn't even know this board exists, feel free to post your Honest and Accurate IQ score. A quick synopsis of your educational background is also appropriate, so don't hesitate to share.
LOL - nmMJ
Nov 12, 2001 1:51 AM
stupid is as stupid doesDog
Nov 12, 2001 7:14 AM
IQ doesn't mean squat. Sure, it means you can solve puzzles or do complex math. But it's fairly useless in measuring the ability to solve real life problems, be a decent person, work hard, or contribute to society in meaninful ways.

You are what you do, not what some number says.

Nov 12, 2001 8:00 AM
I agree. Many people with average or even low IQ scores are highly successful and decent human beings. Many others with high IQ scores are drug addicts and have misanthropic tendancies. No question about it.

But the topic of this tread is about raw intelligence. Is the president a moron or isn't he? And if you are answering that question in a definative way, doesn't it make sense to guage where you are in the spectrum of intelligence? After all, if someone is not very bright, how can they be in a position to judge someone else's intelligence? The point is that you cannot draw a qualified, definative conclusion about someone else's intelligence unless you turn to some mechanism like an IQ test which puts people on the same playing field and measures their abilities in a quantified way.

Otherwise, calling the president a moron is like saying "I can ride faster than Ulrich" or "I'm a better jet fighter pilot that Scott O'Grady." (shot down over Bosnia a while ago) Those comparisons cannot realistically be made because there is no commonality between you and the person in question unless you race Ulrich or climb into an F/A-18 Hornet and fly as O'Grady's wingman.

To drag this out a little further; it is perfectly reasonable to criticize (remember that criticism can be both positive or negative) the president based upon his actions and his statements. But it is not reasonable to definatively conclude that he is a "moron" unless you offer up your own level of intellegence (of which IQ is a measure) in comparison.

I'm splitting hairs with this argument, but I hope that in doing so I'm leading people to remember just what Dog said; "You are what you do..." Since that is a truism, at least in my mind, let's get off the topic of the realtive intelligence of GWB. Or at least not make blanket conclusions about his intelligence unless we offer up comperable information about ourselves.

Now, as for the people who make eye contact with me when they see me approaching on my bike on the local trail and STILL jump into my path and stand there as I slam on the brakes - THEY are morons! ;)
Nov 12, 2001 9:04 AM
I don't have to be a mechanic to know if my car(or bike) is running and if it looks good

I don't have to be attractive (though I am - very- :-)) to judge beauty

I don't have to be someone else to make an (accurate) assessment about that person

the wisest people know their limitations

with this train of thought - we shouldn't let anybody vote, or have an opinion who's not smart - or an expert in the field - I will never understand rocket science but am entitled to a voice on the space programme for example

does that mean that only people who have been on welfare should decide how to run welfare programmes?

but you're right to a point - after all who really knows anything? - maybe it's just that Bush appears to be a ' moron' (and extremely right wing without a mandate) incapable of representing the US on a global stage who is sycophantically attendant to the big business interests that got him elected and destroyed the environment in Texas during his time as Governor (by all means let that man preside over drilling in Alaska!)

people that make eye contact on trails and still jump in front of you are idiots as well - in the meantime Bush appears to be a moron -I'll post my CV/resume later :-)
Nov 12, 2001 10:04 AM
I don't disagree with your points about making qualified (as opposed to quantified) judgements. You don't need to be a medical doctor to know that your body isn't operating properly. Nor do you need to be a doctor to disagree with your doctor's diagnosis and seek a second opinion.

But the buck (or Pound Sterling) stops somewhere. You need treatment, so you gather ALL the information available to you and make an educated decision. You don't say "I know better than all these doctors." Nor do you say "This doctor is God and I put all my faith in him."

In the case of GWB, you look at his actions, consider the alternate choices he could have made, and draw a conclusion with the understanding that your conclusion is likely biased by your political beliefs. Very non-quantitative yet completely reasonable.

But in the realm of intelligence, one is either a moron or not a moron. That is very different from being a good person or a bad person. (As Dog pointed out)

And since the topic is whether or not GWB is a "moron", then we need to reach an educated conclusion. We need to gather all relavant information on only one topic; intelligence.

I submit that one person cannot conclude that another is a moron without offering up evidence that he himself is not a moron. To do so is, well, moronic!

And we have the tools at our disposal to measure and demonstrate intelligence relative to one another - IQ tests. So before you expect me to believe that one person is a moron, please demonstrate that you (the Emperical form of 'you') are not a moron yourself.

[Disclaimer: this is not an attack or defense of any individual. It is only an attempt to be realistic and non-emotional when applying the term "moron" to a fellow human being.]
What's "the Empirical form of "you""??nmmuncher
Nov 12, 2001 10:37 AM
Nov 12, 2001 12:58 PM
You're turning this silly matter into something serious. Geo.W may be a moron, but he's our moron. BTW, what the hell is a moron?
I wrote that with a smile...nova
Nov 12, 2001 1:33 PM
It is obviously a silly discussion, and I obviously have too much time on my hands. So much is lost in this form of communication. If you could hear the inflection in my 'voice' as I write this, you'd know that I'm not taking it very seriously. But my point is valid.

Intelligence is quantifiable.

The definition of the term "moron" is as follows:
"A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive."

Since intelligence is quantifiable, and the term moron has a definition, then it is possible to determine whether or not someone is a moron.

If you call the President, or any other person a moron, please post your IQ score in order to demonstrate that you are not a moron. Is that too much to ask?

And finally, by "empirical form of 'you'", I meant the collective, non-familiar form of "you". As in: "Not MJ"

One definition of "empirical": "Depending upon experience or observation alone, without due regard to science and theory; -- said especially of medical practice, remedies, etc.; wanting in science and deep insight; as, empiric skill, remedies."

Since I had no specific experience with MJ as a person, I used the word "you" in the abstract sense of a collective of individuals. My sense of that collective group is derived upon observation of people in general, without regard to specific measurable experience. Hence the use of the phrase "empirical form of 'you'".

Have a nice day!
Still confusedStar
Nov 12, 2001 2:03 PM
Hmm... what is confusing is that it seems a moron is lessoff than another, which seems to be rather oxymoronic in itself, further complicating this whole matter beyond the point where we started.

Things seem to become twisted when I twiddle my thumbs and watch the raindrops.
leadership, not intelligence, is keyDog
Nov 12, 2001 1:02 PM
A president is not elected to solve our problems himself. He (or she) is elected to lead the country. He must surround himself with people who can solve problems. He must be a motivator. He must commicate. He must lead in the best direction for the whole country. Here's some info:

Ten Ways to Identify a Promising Person

The most gifted athletes rarely make good coaches. The best violinist will not necessarily make the best conductor. Nor will the best teacher necessarily make the best head of the department.

So it's critical to distinguish between the skill of performance and the skill of leading the performance, two entirely different skills.

It's also important to determine whether a person is capable of learning leadership. The natural leader will stand out. The trick is identifying those who are capable of learning leadership over time.

Here are several traits to help identify whether someone is capable of learning to lead.

Leadership in the past. The best predictor of the future is the past. When I was in business, I took note of any worker who told me he was superintendent of a school or a deacon in his church or a Boy Scout leader. If he showed leadership outside of the job, I wanted to find out if he had some leadership potential on the job.
The capacity to create or catch vision. When I talk to people about the future, I want their eyes to light up. I want them to ask the right questions about what I'm talking about.
The founder of Jefferson Standard built a successful insurance company from scratch. He assembled some of the greatest insurance people by simply asking, "Why don't you come and help me build something great?"
A person who doesn't feel the thrill of challenge is not a potential leader.
A constructive spirit of discontent. Some people would call this criticism, but there's a big difference in being constructively discontent and being critical. If somebody says, "There's got to be a better way to do this," I see if there's leadership potential by asking, "Have you ever thought about what that better way might be?" If he says no, he is being critical, not constructive. But if he says yes, he's challenged by a constructive spirit of discontent. That's the unscratchable itch. It is always in the leader.
People locked in the status quo are not leaders. I ask of a potential leader, Does this person believe there is always a better way to do something?
Practical ideas. Highly original people are often not good leaders because they are unable to judge their output; they need somebody else to say, "This will work" or "This won't."
Brainstorming is not a particularly helpful practice in leadership, because ideas need to stay practical. Not everybody with practical ideas is a leader, of course, but leaders seem to be able to identify which ideas are practical and which aren't.
A willingness to take responsibility. One night at the end of the second shift, I walked out of the plant and passed the porter. As head of operations, I had started my day at the beginning of the first shift. The porter said, "Mr. Smith, I sure wish I had your pay, but I don't want your worry." He equated responsibility and worry. He wanted to be able to drop his responsibility when he walked out the door and not carry it home. That's understandable, but it's not a trait in potential leaders. I thought about the porter's comment driving home. If the vice-president and the porter were paid the same money, I'd still want to be vice-president. Carrying responsibility doesn't intimidate me, because the joy of accomplishment-the vicarious feeling of contributing to other people-is what leadership is all about.
A completion factor. I might test somebody's commitment by putting him or her on a task force. I'd find a problem that needs solving and assemble a group of people whose normal responsibilities don't include tackling that problem. The person who grabs hold of the problem and won't let go, like a dog with a bone, has leadership potential. This quality is critical in leaders, for there will be times when nothing but one's iron will says, "Keep going." Dale Carnegie used to say, "I know men in the ranks who will not stay in the ranks. Why? Because they have the ability to get things done." In the military, it is called "completed staff work." With potential leaders, when the work comes in, it's complete. The half-cooked meal isn't good enough.
Mental toughness. No one can lead without being criticized or without facing discouragement. A potential leader needs a mental toughness. I don't want a mean leader; I want a tough-minded leader who sees things as they are and will pay the price. Leadership creates a certain separation from one's peers. The separation comes from carrying responsibility that only you can carry. Years ago, I spoke to a group of presidents in Columbus, Ohio, about loneliness in leadership. One participant, president of an architectural firm, came up afterward and said, "You've solved my problem." "What's your problem?" I asked. "My organization's always confused," he said, "and I didn't know why. It's because I don't like to be lonely; I've got to talk about my ideas to the rest of the company. But they never know which ones will work, so everybody who likes my idea jumps to work on it. Those who don't, work against it. Employees are going backward and forward-when the idea may not even come about at all." Fearing loneliness, this president was not able to keep his ideas to himself until they were better formulated. A leader must be able to keep his or her own counsel until the proper time.
Peer respect. Peer respect doesn't reveal ability, but it can show character and personality. Trammell Crow, one of the world's most successful real estate brokers, said that he looks for people whose associates want them to succeed. He said, "It's tough enough to succeed when everybody wants you to succeed. People who don't want you to succeed are like weights in your running shoes." Maxey Jarmen used to say, "It isn't important that people like you. It's important that they respect you. They may like you but not follow you. If they respect you, they'll follow you, even if perhaps they don't like you."
Family respect. I also look at the family of a potential leader: Do they respect him or her? Fifteen years ago, my daughter said, "Dad, one thing I appreciate is that after you speak and I walk up, you are always attentive to me. You seem proud of me." That meant a lot to me. If respect isn't there, that's also visible. The family's feelings toward someone reveal much about his or her potential to lead.
A quality that makes people listen to them. Potential leaders have a "holding court" quality about them. When they speak, people listen. Other people may talk a great deal, but nobody listens to them. They're making a speech; they're not giving leadership. I take notice of people to whom others listen.
It's not enough for people to have leadership potential; they must have character and the right setting in which to grow. Before I give someone significant leadership responsibilities, I find it helpful to ask myself several questions:

What will this person do to be liked? It's nice to be liked, but as a leader it cannot be the controlling factor. The cause must be the prime motivator.
Does this person have a destructive weakness? There are only two things I need to know about myself: my constructive strength and any destructive weakness. A destructive weakness may not show up on a test; it's a character flaw. A destructive weakness may, for example, be an obsession. An obsession controls us; we don't control it. It only grows worse over time.
Can I provide this person the environment to succeed? It is so important, particularly in the early days of someone's leadership, that he or she be put into a congenial environment. I wouldn't want, for example, to put someone who requires mentoring with a leader who pays no attention to people. An environment that threatens our sense of security or well-being splits our concentration from the cause. Young leaders need an environment in which they can concentrate on leading.
(Fred Smith, LEADERSHIP JOURNAL; Fall 1996, Vol. XVII, No. 4, Page 30)

What is the Role of Leadership?

You may have the following questions about your peer leaders.

What do long-term school reform leaders view as their essential professional competencies?
What do they see as their role in sustaining reform?
How do they engage teachers, families, and communities in partnerships that build programs to help children meet challenging standards?
How do such leaders know when they are doing a good job?
Dimensions of Sustaining Leadership

Partnership and voice
Vision and values
Knowledge and daring
Savvy and persistence
Personal qualities (passion, humor, and empathy strength of character, general maturity, patience, wisdom, common sense, trustworthiness, reliability, creativity, sensitivity)

Jeeze DogMJ
Nov 13, 2001 1:55 AM
I was gonna read that but it's too long - do you charge clients by the word in California? - we stopped doing that in the UK in the 18th century!
copy/paste nmDog
Nov 13, 2001 7:30 AM
Nov 13, 2001 2:05 AM
to prove I'm not a moron, and therefore (by this approach) entitled to judge who is a moron ends up being a pointless pissing contest (and on the net very pointless indeed)

I think it's funny when people try and support their assertions on threads by claims of superior intelligence (IQ points anybody?)

let's just say that I am smart enough, as I believe most people are, to know that GB is a moron - ever try to trick a child - they know what's up

and no Dog it's not about leadership to the exclusion of intelligence - that John Wayne attitude is exactly what I'm talking about and take excpetion to - and re communication - GB may not be an idiot but he sure comes off as one when dealing with people from other countries - he's comes off as a redneck without any depth or understanding of complex international issues - anyways he's surrounded himself not with clever people - but with extreme right wing representatives of special interest groups (Ashcroft anybody?; oil industry anybody?)

lively thread though...
not to exclusionDog
Nov 13, 2001 7:40 AM
Never said it was about leadership to exclusion of intelligence (although you can't be too stupid and still be a good leader). But, I think that leadership is primary.

I think I'm changing my view, slightly, though. I was about to state that even very evil people may be intelligent, but then I realized that evil people can be leaders, too (Hitler...).

What is most important, assuming sufficient intelligence and leadership qualities, is moral foundation. We need leaders and rulers who have a moral compass, a "good" ideology, who want to "do the right thing", are unselfish, and caring. That is what is most important.

Sure, they must have enough brains to understand what their advisors are telling them, and to make the calls, but it's not like we need Einstein running the country. We need good people running the country. IMO, we have that in GWB.

Some people are so passionately biased against other parties, positions, and platforms that they reactively label anyone who disagrees a "moron" or equivalent. That's narrow minded. I'll even grant that Bill Clinton was intelligent, he was just morally void - his downfall.

not to exclusionMJ
Nov 13, 2001 8:50 AM
I don't think that Clinton's Lewinsky scandal = a moral vacuum;

I do think that the pursuit of Clinton for a blowjob (and the related cover up) was wrong and a criminal waste of money

I guess it comes down to the definition of what a good person is - for me GB is not such a person for many of the reasons listed above - I think it's much more of a moral vacuum to be in the backpocket of business than to get a bj off the office help - I think Bush is interested, not in the American people, but in the interests that he serves which is (oil) business and an extreme form of conservatism which is not generally not shared by the rest of the country (I would not be surpirsed if you don't agree with that point...)

(the KKK think they have a good moral compass too) - NOT that GB is akin to the KKK, but his record on executing mentally retarded underage black boys in Texas does speak towards that point

and regardless of what kind of guy he actually is - he comes off as a buffoon who is a long way out of his depth on most things international - he's just not someone that can be taken seriously

I guess that's why they say variety is the spice of life :-)
criminal waste of moneyDog
Nov 14, 2001 8:08 AM
The Clinton administration spent more attacking Microsoft than terrorism. No wonder we are where we are.

let it gopolti-x
Nov 14, 2001 8:34 AM
you republican gas guzzling us vs.them suck-ups just can't let him go, can you. we are where we are because daddy bush didn't finish off saddam when he should have.
agreed butMJ
Nov 14, 2001 9:24 AM
wasn't Clinton in charge when the Gulf War rout ended?
Bush Sr. was still prez.Kory
Nov 14, 2001 6:49 PM
Bubba didn't take office until Jan '93. He kept Gulf War hero Colin Powell on board for his first secretary of defence.
criminal waste of moneyMJ
Nov 14, 2001 9:22 AM
I didn't realise that was the moral vacum to which you were referring... but my mind is always in the gutter

last time I looked monopolies were illegal in the US - I think that other software manufacturers concur pretty strongly with that point

do you seriously think recent events are attributable to Clinton? maybe you haven't received the information regarding the executive decisions in 1998 (after the embassy bombings) that aimed to deal with OBL - and the countless examples where terrorist acts against US/western targets were stopped/dealt with around the world by US Intelligence; or the plan to (illegally) assassinate OBL via the Pakistani ISI in Afghanistan (backed by US Intelligence)

while Bush parades his missile shield as the be all end of all of protection (and wastes billions on unproven technology) against foreign threats somebody somewhere is thinking about a nuclear backpack rather than a nucelar missile

your point doesn't hold water
Where is our leader taking us?Starliner
Nov 13, 2001 10:07 AM
When morality enters a discussion, things get foggy and it's easy to lose sight of where we are going, or where we are being taken. Just because a person is seen as a 'good Christian', or touts 'family values', doesn't mean they are the right ones to lead us. Too often, these qualities cover up the not-so-rosy truth about the real person. See: Gary Condit; Newt Gingrich; J. Edgar Hoover; Jim Bakker; and a lot more of these guys.

Just where is Bush leading us? What are his values?

The path America has taken since the beginning of the industrial revolution has been enormously productive and beneficial to us and to others worldwide. GWB want to continue down that path.

However, some of past assumptions, though seemingly valid for much of our history, are now questionable.

The assumption that growth can and ought to continue without limit is high among them. We need a new economic model for America, one that is not predicated on limitless growth, but can provide us with full employment and a comfortable standard of living, conservation of the world's resources, a responsible environmental policy, and continued opportunity to innovate.

To go there will require some real leadership. Because to get there, we will have to abandon the glorification of materialism which contributes to levels of consumption that not only threaten the environment, but deteriorate our ethical and moral values.

IMO, GWB is not that kind of leader. He'll continue with getting back to the old way of doing things, business as usual. I'm not going to label him a moron, just someone not capable of ensuring our long-term strength and well-being in this world.
well said - nmMJ
Nov 13, 2001 10:44 AM
Well saidnova
Nov 13, 2001 12:43 PM
Very well said. Thank you for being both thoughtful and even-handed in this post.

I am especially fond of the notion that Americans will someday (within my lifetime) live below their means as a matter of personal choice and values. Of course, I said that a couple of months ago on this board and was accused of being envious because I couldn't afford an SUV. (I am neither envious nor impoverished by the way. But I do live below my means as a matter of choice.)

As a member of neither dominant political party in the USA, last year was a tough one for me in choosing which candidate to vote for. It wouldn't matter who was in office, there would still be large factions of people around the globe who would be offended by the president-elect. Clearly, Al Gore is more articulate and presentable than GWB. But does that necessarily mean that he will make a better president?

Truman was a bit of redneck himself. You can be sure that factions of people around the world were very displeased with the notion of Truman as president. He ended the war quickly. (MJ: he ended the war in the Pacific, which was a monumental campaign, won solely by the Americans with no meaningful assistance from GB, France, or Russia. Truman decided to drop the bombs. They ended the war.)

Then this country entered a boom period and the Western world achieved prosperity and 'progress' like never before. Truman, bless his little country corn-pone heart, had a lot to do with the good things that happened in Asia and Europe after 1945, despite his southern twang and his foolish looking spectacles.

We need another kind of boom period now. Not one where we build more SUVs, lay down more asphalt, and escalate the rampant consumerism which is going to cost us so much down the road. Have you purchased a telephone recently? Look at all the packing material that came with that phone; cardboard, styrofoam, plastic bags, twist ties, pages and pages of printed material. Is it all really necessary? Just give me the phone with a bar code sticker on the side so that it can be rung up at the cash register. I don't need all that crap which comes with it.

And for the sake of our international readers; after spending time in Switzerland, Germany, and France, I was struck by how much England reminded me of the USA. There are a lot more obese people walking around, the people seem much more anxious and stressed out, the cars are bigger on average, the food is much less healthful, department stores are monuments to consumerism, acts of violence appear to be more prevalent, etc. {But I gotta say that I love that show Junkyard Wars! I also like the British verion of Whose Line is it Anyway.}

By the way: for anyone interested, here is a culturally neutral IQ test. How neutral is it? It doesn't even use written language. It uses colors, shapes, and patterns, which are universal in all walks of life.
Nov 13, 2001 3:03 PM
the British were involved in the Pacific - they were taken prisoner early in the war in HK and Singapore and spent the next 4-5 years locked up! - it's kind of like sending both of the planes over to Afghanistan :-)
Nov 13, 2001 10:33 PM
I just took the test,(never taken an IQ test before)Late at night after a full day of work and a couple of extra hours of paper work. Turns out I'm "absolutely brilliant". Good laugh here! Maybe I'll change my handle to "ACE 132". Many of you are extremely intelligent,I expect to see new handles, such as Dog 184 and Aki 160, Kerry 198, Ishmael 82 How 'bout it?
ACE 132
I understandnova
Nov 13, 2001 8:11 AM
the pissing contest point. It happens here on occasion over who has more money, better bikes, bigger quads, etc.

The point which appears to be lost on you is that this is a quantifiable excercise. The original post asked: "GWB, Moron, or Menance?" We can reach a definative conclusion about the first portion of the question.

We know what a moron is, and we can take a valid measurement (IQ test) to prove whether or not someone is a moron. Do you disagree with that? This is basic science.

In basic science, experiments and measurements must take into consideration the possibility that the viewpoint of the observer may in fact taint the results of the experiment. Do you disagree with that? Again, this is basic science.

So if someone (like whomever started this thread) REALLY wants to answer the question about GWB's intelligence, then the poser of the hypothesis must in fact demonstrate that their biases will not taint the outcome of the test. Do you disagree with that?

In the States, where our public education system is arguably inferior to those in many other industrialized nations, all this is taught to students at the 7th grade level. Interestingly, having the intellectual development of a 7th grader by definition makes someone a 'moron'. Ain't that a coincidence? ;-)

So if you are serious about judging someone else's intelligence, and you reach a definative conclusion about that person's intelligence, you MUST prove (Scientifically, Quantitatively) that your own intelligence (or lack thereof) does not taint your point of view.

This has nothing to do with politics. That is the "Menace?" part of the question, which is another field of study altogether.

I can tell you are a person of words and language. A literary, thoughtful person. But you aren't a math wiz, and you would make a lousy scientist. (You would make observations like: "The chromosomes under the electron microscope are showing right-wing tendancies, and therefore must be destroyed!")

By the way, I'm no math wiz either. But again, this is junior high school-level material.
You wouldn't want to...muncher
Nov 13, 2001 9:42 AM
go trotting that one out at a Wittgenstein conference...
wherever you go there's Wittgenstein - nmMJ
Nov 13, 2001 10:58 AM
Knock knock...muncher
Nov 14, 2001 3:22 AM
Wittgensietin: Who's there?
Dr Who: How did you know?
Wittgenstein: Ah, I'm gald you asked me that, it's a very interesting conceptual question on the very nature of the expression of our central meaning of truth and understanding. Take a small child, deaf at birth, and later exposed to an alien language...

(fade to sound of tardis disappearing into the disatance)...
I understandMJ
Nov 13, 2001 10:15 AM
no definitely not a maths person (despite what I've been doing today at work!)

anyways - standardised tests, including IQ scores, are immeasureably biased - certainly I don't need to display my IQ score (a dubious measurement if ever there was one) to see someone else's IQ score and know what it means -

I think you can judge whether someone is a moron on their actions, presentation and content (or lack thereof) of speech - I don't think there is an exact science - but do believe that based upon this criteria which we all have access to, GW is a moron - I think people on the left and right (speaking of biases) can conclude that there have been better leaders than good old GW and that he does present like a supreme moron; he is not a world classs statesman
re: George Bush: Menace, or just a moron?PbOkole
Nov 14, 2001 11:57 AM
"I think it's funny that most Americans didn't even vote for him yet are stuck with him parading around and meeting people"

Didn't he take a higher percentage of votes than William Jefferson Clinton did in his re-election? If so, then we could say the same thing about the last four years of the Clinton administration. Thank heaven for the Electoral College ensuring that national leaders are not elected solely by the east and west coasts thus allowing the mid-americans a voice.
Nov 15, 2001 2:04 AM
I think Clinton had a pretty healthy margin - both in total numbers and in electoral votes in his last election

you're not trying to tell me that Dole won the popular vote in the last election? that's ridiculous - what exactly are you saying?

agree that mid-America should have a 'voice' and that the election should not be won or lost on the basis of the 10 largest US urban centres - but you gotta admit that it's funny that Bush lost the popular vote, in what was a close election even in the electoral college - it's funny because even though he barely won - he's proceeding with some of the most extreme policies and appointments; he has no mandate = bull in a china shop - that's what happens when you're in other people's backpockets, painted into the corner
My Mistake, look at 1992.PbOkole
Nov 16, 2001 4:34 AM
It was the 1992 election not the 1996 I was thinking of. Look at the numbers.

Clinton: 44908233 votes
Bush: 29102282 votes
Perot: 19741084 votes

Clinton received approximately 43.6% of the popular vote.

Now the 2000 numbers:
Bush: 50546169 votes
Gore: 50996116 votes
Nader: 2695696 votes

Bush receives just over 49% of the vote. It looks to me like he has more right to the presidency than Clinton did in 1992. He at least had VERY close to half of the votes in what was virtually a dead heat election. Whichever candidate won in 2000, would still only have 49% of the popular vote. They were well under a percentage point apart and if you throw in the typical margin for error (ambiguous votes, double votes, over counts, under counts, etc.) it is a statistical tie. Keep this in mind when you start the whole "popular vote" whining. They tied, Bush carried the Electoral College. The election is over. Both candidates ran a good race and neither one is probably any worse or any better than the other. Move along there's nothing to see here.
Geez, which one!!!! (nm)4bykn
Nov 9, 2001 8:58 AM
Moron, by a nose. (nm)Rusty McNasty
Nov 9, 2001 9:08 AM
Mini MeTig
Nov 9, 2001 12:23 PM
I have mixed emotions about the bone head, but you gotta' love the picture!
Leave the old man alonemr_spin
Nov 9, 2001 12:41 PM
He hasn't been President for almost a decade!
Hey, I hate the French!javagenki
Nov 9, 2001 12:48 PM
Let's talk more about the French. Henry V was a great movie. More long bows! More long bows! More long bows!
Henry V was English, you twit!! (nm)Rusty McNasty
Nov 9, 2001 1:33 PM
Nov 9, 2001 1:44 PM
I think the point is that Hank V and his men killed a few French. Nice try, though.
You know as much about Brit. Lit. as you do about bikes.javagenki
Nov 9, 2001 2:00 PM
"sit and see,/ minding true things by what their mock'ries be." Henry the V, the English king, killed beaucoup French guys with long bows at the battle of Agincourt on October 25, 1415. Who's the twit?
On St. Crisp(i)an's Day (nm)mickey-mac
Nov 9, 2001 2:02 PM
Mais non, c'est ne vrais pas...muncher
Nov 12, 2001 1:30 AM
Enri L'Cinque was un Frenchhomme. Paourqai? Parce..

1) He wore the same clothes every day
2) He never cleaned his teeth
3) He charriot was a deux cheveaux.
et 4) He kept pinching women's bottoms.

Cest vrais - vous ecoutez ici le premiere fois...

Cote Du Rhone et Salle de Bain,

Le M.
"Cory: Menace, or just a moron?"Dog
Nov 12, 2001 7:10 AM
Can't believe I got to it first
Nov 12, 2001 9:48 AM
This whole thread is a hoot! But Cory was successful. He wanted to spice up a
boring day.