RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


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


Why were Dean's comments so bad?(77 posts)

Why were Dean's comments so bad?94Nole
Nov 6, 2003 7:29 AM
He simply stated that the Dems should also work to get the votes of C-Flag-waving southern whites. Why is that so bad?
Political correctness run amok . . .HMS
Nov 6, 2003 8:00 AM
Dean was right. But, the Confederate flag has become such a polarizing thing that any reference to it draws extreme and sometimes irrational reactions. My view of voters is that if I can convince you to vote for my candidate because you agree with his or her positions on points A, B and D, but disagree on C, I really don't care what you think about C so long as my candidate gets your vote.

Two Confederate flag stories: (1) The Confederate flag not only is waved by southerners. In 2000, I was canvassing for Bill Bradley in Keene, New Hampshire, when I came upon a street in which there were at least two trucks with Confederate flags on them. (2) The first year that the Baltimore Bicycle Club hosted the Civil War Century (2001), the ride T-shirt had a Confederate and a Union soldier on bikes, each holding his respective flag. More than one person has given me sh@t for wearing that T-shirt even though the Confederate flag is just a small part of a T-shirt that refers to a historical event.

The bottom line: Dean's comment is correct, but it was stupid for him to make it. John Edwards implicitly has made the same statement with his support of NASCAR. But, he is smart enough to stay away from the flag.
Wasn't intellectually terrible, but it was politically stupid.OldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 8:10 AM
What he said was correct. But the rebel flag is a very bad symbol to use in ANY political context, because it's so incendiary. I don't know HOW you'd use it in a way that won't cause some people to go 'Huh?' and get their back up.

Plus he compounded the problem -- he potentially offended TWO ethnic groups: Blacks AND rednecks. Whew. That's a two-bank shot that's hard to make, but (with a little help from his increasingly desperate opponents) he managed to do it.
re: Why were Dean's comments so bad?mohair_chair
Nov 6, 2003 8:09 AM
It's bad because no one can tell the difference between any of the candidates (except Sharpton), so anything a candidate says that is just a micron out of step with the other guys is magnified to outrageous proportions, simply because there is nothing else to report. What he said is almost irrelevant. (Naturally, the content and context of what he said is irrelevant.)

Basically, because there is nothing to report, every statement becomes highly controversial and made equivalent to Bob Dole falling off the stage in 1996.
Hilarious but truefiltersweep
Nov 6, 2003 8:48 AM
-and Sharpton is ironically the closest thing to a true democrat we've seen in years ;) Certainly he is the most interesting candidate- and he has the best sense of humor.

I'd never vote for Sharpton, because he's come a long way from when he first surfaced as a media whore.
because ...ColnagoFE
Nov 6, 2003 8:20 AM
you can't say anything remotely controversial if you are a politician these days.
beats meDuane Gran
Nov 6, 2003 8:30 AM
I'm living in Virginia, where the confederate flag is not so common, but I still see many of them. I don't think anyone who flies a confederate flag is upset, but the rest of the nation may get upset. For what it is worth, from a small survey of those who cling to the "old south" it has little to do with racism and more to do with regional identity.
Refreshing to see a politician speak honestlyStarliner
Nov 6, 2003 8:44 AM
I like Dean even more now, because he demonstrated a 'to hell with being PC' ethic which is all too rare in public life today. I read him as someone who respects the intelligence of the average joe/jane, which means he will be making statements which deviate from PC protocol now and then, rather than utilize the safer smoke and mirror approach in which the truth of the person is hidden.

Sometime there are things which have to be said, and thank god for those who have the balls to say them.
He's doing a good job shooting himself in the foot...No_sprint
Nov 6, 2003 9:12 AM
Keep 'em coming Dean! LOL

He should take more notes from Clinton (one of the best politicians I've ever seen, and that's not a compliment) about being a politician. It's certainly not about saying what's correct, Clinton was the absolute master at saying whatever it is many people wanted to hear.
Dumocrats debating is almost as good as ...Live Steam
Nov 6, 2003 8:47 AM
watchin' female mud wrasselin' :O)

Dean will step on his d!ck again before this is over. Ouch that's gonna leave a mark! LOL!! He did it on Russert. He did it in the debate and he will do it again.

I just LUV the "I'm not George Bush" rhetoric. The more they point out their differences, the farther they get from stealing votes away from this popular President. Way to go DNC!!!! Dopey Dems don't see that most Americans looked at Saddam with fear and perceive him to be intricately involved with terrorism and as a threat to their way of life. After all, perception is everything - right ED? Clinton helped perpetuate that fear and GW is now helping to alleviate that fear and preserve the American way of life - big mortgages, a Mercedes in every garage and designer clothing for the kiddies.
Popular?filtersweep
Nov 6, 2003 8:55 AM
And most republicans forget how impaired people's memories are. Pappa Bush couldn't get himself re-elected on the heels of a much more popular war agains the same "evil villain."

More and more Americans seem to be waking up to the fact that Saddam is just a whipping boy for Bin Laden, and that billions of dollars and more and more body bags show little promise at making the world a safer place.

I hate GW... unfortunately there is no one from the Dems that excites me in the least... I fear this will be like trying to unseat Reagan after his first term.
The Bottom LineLive Steam
Nov 6, 2003 9:06 AM
Whether you like him or not, GW is helping turn the economy around. They only thing that voters will be thinking about when pulling the lever is how it will effect their pocket book. Period. End of story. I expect that things will be looking pretty rosey come next November. Many voters will say something like he is strong on defense and terrorism, but they really voted for him because they don't want to rock the economic boat. That's why Clinton won a second term even with all his problems, and GW will win the same way.
When do we pay the piper?filtersweep
Nov 6, 2003 9:32 AM
But heavy-duty deficit spending? Actually, I'm savvy enough to know that deficit spending is often over-rated as an evil in and of itself, but spending all this on a war with dubious consequences and results? I believe there are better uses for that kind of money and resources.

The economy? As long as it all works out in the long run, I won't question it... but only time will tell.

Pocket book? I didn't get a tax refund...;)

BTW- I tend to vote my pocket book more than my conscience- and (as an aside- not to hijack this thread) part of my pocket book involves my parent who spend a fortune monthly on their prescription medications... I actually know "healthy" oldsters who pay $800+/month for meds...
Healthy oldsters, $880/mo???????No_sprint
Nov 6, 2003 9:44 AM
That's absurd. Don't blame anyone but doctors for over-medicating and patients themselves for being a sucker. Anyone healthy really doesn't need much medication at all IMHO.

As far as the economy goes, I was hurt tremendously during the later Clinton years, as was everyone with a retirement account, stocks, etc. Only recently has it started to pick back up.
More on the economy...No_sprint
Nov 6, 2003 9:59 AM
You didn't get a tax refund under the last president either. I got one this time. There has been no bad direct effect on my personal economics from any Bush policy.

Compare a recent tax refund and no negative effect from this administration to the last administration. Just to begin with, there was no tax refund, and 3 important tax decisions were vetoed on the way out, a really stupid and spiteful action. I was directly effected negatively. I would have preferred an administration that would have turned the ship at least somewhat in a direction to hold off or slow such a huge market downturn better. There was no economic vision. It's obvious that most if not all taxpayers are in a much better boat now.
He's got a long way to go, inorder to catch up with gwMR_GRUMPY
Nov 6, 2003 8:57 AM
Really stupid count........Dean __ 1, Bush ___ 8372
But the problem with that is,TJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 9:02 AM
When Bush says something stupid, most people know that he mis-spoke. Because he's always saying something stupid that he doesn't really mean, because he is an idiot.

Dean, on the other hand, is a smart and eloquent guy, and when he says something stupid, he meant to say it. And then when asked if that's what he really meant, he affirms it.
Is GWB really an idiot . . .HMS
Nov 6, 2003 9:23 AM
or is he "dumb" the same way the Sam Ervin was a "dumb, country lawyer?" I do not like GWB's policies or actions as President, but I am not sure that he is as dumb as most people assume. He has put together a very competent management team, his team has been more disciplined than that of any modern administration and by playing the idiot, he has lowered expectations with respect to his performance. We Dems used to think that Ronald Reagan was stupid, too. Even when Reagan was suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (probably most of his second term), he kept us Democrats in line and was able to get his annointed successor, GHWB elected. I'm not so sure that being perceived as being smart is an asset for an aspiring President. Nixon, Carter and Clinton all were perceived as being smart guys. The first two went down in flames and the third was impeached. So much for brains.
I think it's hilarious when people call GW names...No_sprint
Nov 6, 2003 9:31 AM
It really shows who the real morons are. One may not like GW in the Whitehouse and/or what he is doing. I've never seen millions of people agree on any one thing at all. Since there is no absolute right or wrong, he cannot be faulted for going after his own vision. What's left for the haters to do? Call him names. Ridiculous, keep 'em coming haters, keep showing your lack of intelligence!
cheap substitute for substantive remarksDougSloan
Nov 6, 2003 9:46 AM
Yes, people often resort to name calling when they run out of substantive attacks, or at least the substantive attacks become ineffective. Some people smuggly and arrogantly call GW "stupid", largely because they've exhausted their arsenal of meaningful comments and have nothing else to say. This is a particularly common tactic of the "intellectual left", who largely believe that everyone but similar thinking academics are a stupid sub specie, anyway.

I like it, too. When they resort to name calling, you know you got'em.

Doug
Sure Doug, but the 'Bush is an idiot' statement in this threadOldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 9:57 AM
came from TJeanloz, who's the closest thing to an independent voice in this forum. Fact is, he generally supports Bush and is pretty vociferous about it. No one, properly, would take it seriously if a Dumocrat partisan called Bush an idiot. But I doubt anyone could accuse TJ of rabid partisan sniping. He's certainly not a member of the 'intellectual left.' We wouldn't let an aristocrat like that in our club!

I was a little surprised myself to see him call Bush an idiot so baldly. But I took it as a more-or-less independent judgment.
To clarify,TJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 10:05 AM
My statement that "Bush is an idiot" does not reflect my own view, as I am on the record believing that Mr. Bush is a very smart man. Rather, it was an unclear attempt to explain why the general population is not as critical of Bush when he mis-speaks as they are of the more intellectual set (Dean et. al).

The statement that he is an idiot was thus meant to convey the perception of the population, rather than my own view. And I do believe that the popular notion, for better or worse, is that Bush is not all that intelligent.
That's how I read it. I didn't understand Eds response to it nmLive Steam
Nov 6, 2003 10:09 AM
Ah! I wasn't subtle enough to catch your irony.OldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 10:38 AM
My apologies for misrepresenting.
And furthermore,TJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 10:08 AM
Your club has plenty of members more aristocratic than I:

Dr. Dean
Mr. Kerry
Mr. Kennedy

And many more.
But here maybeOldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 10:40 AM
you didn't catch my irony. We would love to have an aristocrat like you in our club, as well as the guys in pickups with rebel flags.
Not enough money in the world to turn me communist (nm)TJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 10:42 AM
I spent the morning reading Dr. Dean's economic plan, and now, instead of being ambivilent, I am terrified.
saying Bush is an idiot...gtx
Nov 6, 2003 10:12 AM
is like saying Clinton likes to have sex with women other than his wife. Both are true statements, easily proven. How you feel about these facts, and their relevance to our nation, is another question.
I think both have been quite difficult to prove (nm)TJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 10:15 AM
Despite the best efforts of either side.
uhDougSloan
Nov 6, 2003 10:20 AM
Even if TJ meant it, which he clearly did not, focusing attention on that one remark is not exactly exculpating of the Left. It's their mantra. Their platform. Their blanket "killer argument" to ridicule and distract from real issues, most likely resulting from their total lack of comprehension as to why any rational person would support Bush. "Well, we can't win on the issues, so let's just call him 'stupid'." -- must be the backroom chatter. Why they're at it, why not just come right out and call all of his supporters "stupid." I'd love it.

Doug
uh, reduxOldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 11:00 AM
Please cite for me just ONE reference where any serious Dumocrat candidate for president has called GWB 'stupid.' (Or are the Dumocrat candidates not on 'the Left,' which you have smeared with a very broad brush yourself here).

Since you say this is 'their mantra .. (t)heir platform,' I'm sure it will be very easy for you to search a website quickly to come up with a reference.
wellDougSloan
Nov 6, 2003 11:48 AM
Well, I was referring to people (Cory, czar, critmass, etc.) here on this forum, but I'll see what I can dig up.

Doug
does Carville count?DougSloan
Nov 6, 2003 11:49 AM
"In the Clinton administration we worried the president would open his zipper. In the Bush administration, they worry the president will open his mouth." (implied)(still looking)
I'll help you look. Surely, together, we can findOldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 2:42 PM
evidence of this 'mantra' that is the only thing the Left is saying, eh? It'll be a bipartisan search, in a spirit of cooperation!
You've defined the "Left" too tightly,TJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 2:53 PM
If you define the "Left" as the viable candidates, you won't be able to pin them down on saying anything. Being a viable candidate requires that you say as little controversial as possible. Those on the Left outside of the United States are under no such pressure to be reelected.

I will respectfully submit Francoise Ducros, aide to Canadian Prime Minister Chretien, who called Bush a "moron".
Oh for God's sake.OldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 3:21 PM
I got enough problems dealing with the goddamn AMERICAN Dumocrat Left. Give me a break. The C!nucks can defend their ownselfs.

(Oh my God, THAT was politically incorrect. About as offensive as your disparaging of the Crackro-American dialect -- 'dubya' -- as indicating stupidity).

DOUG defined it tightly, or broadly, whatever, as THE Left, a mantra of THE Left, and since that includes about 75 million Americans, I had to narrow it down to something we could examine objectively. Since, in his formulation, we ALL do it, presumably these cats running for prez do it too, right?
No luck so far. Looked at the Fox News website, theOldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 3:26 PM
Washington Times website, the American STANDARD website, lessee, Drudge, uh, the New York Post ... nothing's turned up YET, but this mantra surely has left tracks we'll uncover ... TJ's found something in Canada, but I'm sure we won't have to go that far afield, since this is ALL the Left is saying ...
thousand of referencesDougSloan
Nov 7, 2003 9:55 AM
Ok, I've located thousands of websites calling Bush "stupid," "moron," "ignorant," and so on. Even Googling "Bush" alone will get you thousands if hits with the referneces included. But, no, I haven't located a "viable presidential candidate" saying it. But, as TJ suggests, that's too narrow a restriction on the universe of those saying it. Not only are there thousands of references out there from obscure bloggers, but a number from entertainers and other public figures. I bet I could find a hundred such references on this Forum alone.

So, can you honestly deny that "the Left," not limited to presidential candidates, regularly calls Bush stupid?

Doug
I have no idea if all that vast galaxy ofOldEdScott
Nov 7, 2003 10:16 AM
folks calling Bush stupid on the Web is 'the Left' or not --could be independents in there too, could even be disgrunted Republicans, could be right-wing Democrats, who knows? -- but if indeed thousands are doing so it must give you pause about how Our President is perceived by the folks out there.

I can honestly deny this statement, though: 'It's their mantra. Their platform. Their blanket "killer argument" to ridicule and distract from real issues.'

Some on the Left, certainly not all, regularly call Bush stupid. If so, they're emotional, immature and likely amateurs. It won't get 'em anywhere.

Among the serious Left that is working to take the country back from the neo-cons -- and that includes the presidential candidates -- it is hardly a mantra, platform, and killer argument, and in fact you'd be hard pressed to find even a nugget of that in the milllions of words uttered by them discussing, debating and challenging the policies of this president.
agree in partDougSloan
Nov 7, 2003 10:40 AM
I think what you are saying is that the upper echelon of the Left is smart enough not to lower themselves to such tactics. However, there are plenty of people who would qualify, apparently, for your description of "Some on the Left, certainly not all, regularly call Bush stupid. If so, they're emotional, immature and likely amateurs."

To wit:

mdehner "Is it just me, or is anyone else troubled..." 8/18/03 6:20am

"Compared to ANYBODY, Bush sounds like an idiot (nm)"
Posted by: cory Jul-18-03, 08:27 AM

"One reason Bush may sound like an idiot so often?"
Posted by: critmass Jul-18-03, 09:23 AM

sorry, out of time
HA. Well, this is an Internet forum. By definition,OldEdScott
Nov 7, 2003 1:38 PM
we're going to be emotional, immature and amaturish. That's why we come here -- it's like drinking Bourbon on the porch and b!tching.

Hell, Bush DOES sound like an idiot to me. Maybe he isn't one, who knows? Maybe he goes to secret White House basement Mensa meetings right after his secret White House basement AA meetings. I may rear up and express my suspicions here about his mental capacity. But away from this friendly forum, and off my front porch, I won't be handing over speeches or op-ed pieces or TV scripts to my clients that say any such thing. The real debate is at a higher level than that, and deals with real issues, HUGE issues, and your original post didn't even begin to acknowledge that.

Let me add one disclaimer: I don't believe that high intelligence is a prerequisite for leadership. Leadership is an intangible. Leaders can hire people to do the hard thinking for them. Bush's problem, in my view, is he's hired some seriously dangerous people to do his thinking.
DanforthDougSloan
Nov 7, 2003 1:52 PM
I grew up on Missouri knowing Jack Danforth, and when he spoke at my high school graduation, he said the secret to leadership is to surround yourself with people smarter than you. By definition, I suppose, if you are the smartest person, then you can't do this, and then you can't lead -- right? ;-)

I think *successful* leadership is mostly about having a good moral compass, some charisma (whatever that is), communicating *effectively* (not necessarily being the most articulate), and then having people help you who are intelligent and effective. As long as you are the moral compass, you should be able to guide the ship.

Doug
100 percent agree, but would add a good dose ofOldEdScott
Nov 7, 2003 2:04 PM
inspiration. You should be inspired yourself (to do whatever) and able to convey that sense of mission to others.

Give Bush credit: After 9/11, he was very good at that.
Wall Street Journal, no ... National Review, uh uh ...OldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 4:18 PM
Damn! Steam, get in here and help! These Web searches are your speciality. I'm SURE we can find it.

After all, the Left hasn't said ONE WORD on any substantive issue, like the ongoing Iraq disaster, the neo-con Imperial worldview, thye dismantling of environmental protections, the Potemkin 'education' bill, the Ashcroft Alien and Sedition Act, and the administration's wrongheaded tax policy. All we've said, mantralike, is 'Bush is an idiot.' There MUST be proof, even in he yellow rag press I've searched.
it's a grass roots effort ... nmDougSloan
Nov 7, 2003 7:32 AM
like "slick willie"? nmrufus
Nov 6, 2003 10:30 AM
that's actually a compliment nmDougSloan
Nov 6, 2003 10:32 AM
and undeserved as well...No_sprint
Nov 6, 2003 10:39 AM
It's not too slick for a married president to leave cum on his intern's dress and then get on every channel in the U.S. and look us all straight in the eyes and just plain olf bald face lie. Then lie under oath and thus be the main man in the country and undermine one of the most critical pillars of our entire society and then get impeached.

Not very slick. LOL
yes, but he would have been re-elected anyway :-| nmDougSloan
Nov 6, 2003 10:41 AM
Truly terrifying isn't it? nmNo_sprint
Nov 6, 2003 10:54 AM
an interesting thoughtDougSloan
Nov 6, 2003 10:57 AM
Let's say he could have run again, and he won. I'd bet the Democratic party would be dying a horrific death right now (well, worse that it is). With the economy and terrorism all dumped solely in Clinton's lap (politically), I'm not sure any degree of slickness could have extricated him from that quagmire.

Doug
and the real kicker...No_sprint
Nov 6, 2003 10:41 AM
He's not slick enough to get away from the wicked witch! He's still married to her! LOL
he's banking on herDougSloan
Nov 6, 2003 10:43 AM
Just think of the fun he'll have with the Whitehouse interns if she gets elected! All the fun and none of the responsibility.
LOL! You're probably right. nmNo_sprint
Nov 6, 2003 10:44 AM
Just a figure "HEAD" LOL!!!!! nmLive Steam
Nov 6, 2003 10:46 AM
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!! Good stuff. nmNo_sprint
Nov 6, 2003 10:47 AM
That's more of a nickname, like "Dubya"TJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 10:34 AM
Both of which I think are retarded and think less of anybody who uses either. But that's just me.

A condescending nickname is sort of a political tradition - has any President avoided it? I see it as entirely different than harping on a perceived flaw.
I think Dubya is a friend/family nickname.OldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 10:45 AM
Don't believe it's condescending. It was just a way to designate 'W' as opposed to 'HW,' and gained currency with the general public. It's not a Dumocrat thang.
and Slick WillieDougSloan
Nov 6, 2003 10:48 AM
I think "Slick Willie" actually implies a bit of envy, in more than one respect. ;-)
I can say with 100% certainty that it is notTJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 10:57 AM
The use of "Dubya" is not a family term. Rarely, when the distinction wasn't clear, the family would have used George W. and George H.W. It is purely a Left design which is condescending by making the President appear to be an ignorant Southerner. It gained currency only with those on the Left who think its funny.

Now the family uses "George 41" and "George 43" to differentiate the two of them.
I'm checking with a GOP source on the origins ofOldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 11:45 AM
the nickname, but I'm stumped by your absurd contention that the Southern phonetic spelling of the letter W -- a wholly appropriate way to distinguish just W from HW, especially in the early days of his presidential bid when most of us didn't even know what he looked like -- can be condescending, or some wild Left plot to denigrate the President. Granted, some on the Left who make fun of the President USE 'Dubya' as a perjorative; hell, they use BUSH as a perjorative. But Dubya itself is content-neutral. Dubya is how I say W. I'm at a loss to see how it could be considered offensive.

That is especially true given Bush's own penchant for hanging nicknames on people, his own FAMILY'S penchant for nicknames, and some of the OTHER nicknames he's had over the years.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/02/12/dubbed.html
I beat you to it,TJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 11:54 AM
According to some source, which I can't remember, but could re-google, consensus man of the year Karl Rove is the origin. Apparently, during the campaigns for Governer in Texas, they wanted to avoid having him called "Junior", because they felt it hit too close to home in terms of perceived intellectual capacity and childish behavior. They settled on "W." as an outgrowth of the "Hook-em-Horns" hand gesture used by UT fans, and later by the Bush campaign. W naturally transgressed to Dubya. If you wonder who uses the "Dubya" construct, you need only google it. There are few flattering references to "Dubya." And before you say that their are few flattering references to Bush, google "President Bush" for the flipside.

Those of us in the intellectual North do see "Dubya" as a swipe at the Texas redneck nature of the man in office. For example, Bush's nephew, George Prescott Bush, is commonly "P.", but when he runs for president, I assure you, the Left will be calling him "Pee".
I guess as a Kentucky redneck who says dubyaOldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 12:11 PM
anytime I'm called upon to say W out loud, I miss the given offense. Maybe I should be insulted that you think the pronunciation denotes uneducated ignorance. In fact, I believe I will, in the interest of political correctness.
Yes, you should be offendedTJeanloz
Nov 6, 2003 12:14 PM
But Howard Dean would support my position. He might even call you poor.
Naw, he'd call me 'pore' if he knows what's good for him. nmOldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 12:16 PM
kinda like george III, huh? nmrufus
Nov 6, 2003 3:01 PM
Ed don't you think the only chance you guys have to steal ...Live Steam
Nov 6, 2003 10:57 AM
the election is to blur the lines between "W" and your guy? Trying to highlight the differences is just polarizing the vote. The Dems are losers when going to the extremes of party philosophy. Right wingers are perceived as way more "American" than lefties. Lefties are viewed as Communists/Socialists and that is certainly no American.

This "I'm not GW is probably the worst campaign tactic I have ever seen considering the support the war received and what may well be an economy on the mend. You guys have certainly put all your chips in one basket. I know most of you are waiting for '08, but I don't think the witch is electable as President. It could be a long time coming for your team. Do I hear 2016 and counting?
Oh, I think we're on history's trash heap.OldEdScott
Nov 6, 2003 11:08 AM
I told you the other day, I surrender. I'm just continuing the argument to amuse myself while Progressive Labor considers my application for reinstatement with the Commies. I'll have just as much impact with PL as I have with the Dumocrats -- which is none -- and at least PL has party discipline.
Dumb like a fox ...HouseMoney
Nov 6, 2003 11:36 AM
I hope the Democrats continue to underestimate Dubya for the next year. The end result will be him winning a 2nd term in office.
george isn't "dumb", unless you rank him up against........MR_GRUMPY
Nov 6, 2003 11:38 AM
all the other Presidents. If you rank him up against the general population,....he comes up "average."
that is certainly substantive debate. (nm)94Nole
Nov 6, 2003 11:44 AM
So,........Which Presidents is he smarter than ??????????MR_GRUMPY
Nov 6, 2003 2:04 PM
And please don't say Bill Clinton...........That would be funny.
I don't know, Grumpy, you tell me...94Nole
Nov 7, 2003 8:27 AM
your obviously old enough to have known them all.

enjoy your misery. you'll be in it at least until January of 2009.

here's how your history will record the W administration. damn cheater! stole the damn '00 election and the sum b!tch was re-elected!!!!

enjoy!!!

Oh, this post is not intended as debate but pure fun for the other side
I can't think of any except maybe...........................MR_GRUMPY
Nov 7, 2003 1:15 PM
Wilson, while he was out of it, with a stroke. Or maybe Ronnie, in his last year.
and what incredibly accurate means of measurementNo_sprint
Nov 7, 2003 1:36 PM
are you using? LOL How f$#king stupid!

To make judgements like this shows your limited intelligence only.
Accurate means of measurement= written works, books read.......MR_GRUMPY
Nov 7, 2003 7:28 PM
Lets see, What books has george published ??????? What papers has george written ???????? Can george read a book over 1000 pages ??????????? Can george read a book without pictures ?????????? It would be interesting to see what kind of papers george wrote in school. I would love to read his paper he wrote "What I did in the Air National Guard."
.....OH, wait, he never finished that paper, did he ????????????
Ps. george is STILL a dope.
some things never change.
Pss. If you don't like what I write, don't read it.....
Sorry to get your BP up. .......(Well, not really sorry)
LOL Ease down boy, you'll blow a blood vessel...No_sprint
Nov 10, 2003 9:39 AM
Written work is the universal and accurate means of measuring intelligence?

This is not even worth discussing. You've shown your lack of intelligence. Keep voicing your idiotic opinion, that's all it is.

You'r the minority, we all see why. Enjoy the view from the corner, outside...