SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!!!
Let’s get something straight, once and for all: the goddamned motherfucking popular vote outcome DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER. Not only that, BUT IT NEVER HAS FUCKING MATTERED and as long as it’s the United STATES of America, rather than the United PEOPLE of America, IT NEVER WILL FUCKING MATTER.
Jesus Christ, can we move on, please?
S’matta KS?
Can’t handle the truth?
S’matta KS?
Can’t handle the truth?
Factually, of course you’re correct.
…but so am I.
My thoughts exactly, articulated far better than I could have managed.
I regards to the event of 9/11, the hit of 50 billion dollars and 3000 lives seems insignificant to a 1 trillion dollar windfall from the treasury and the capacity to claim a 95% approval rating to do it, change the privacy laws and to bomb Arabs on top of it. Again, I’m not understanding how Bush’s bumbling and illigitaite presidency is counter-productive to the execution of this plan?
A trillion dollars can buy a lot of hushed mouths. If this weren’t enough you have stock payer consolidation of 600 million protected by the Enron bankruptcy (cannibalize Enron to pay for the election), untold billions from the tobacco tax and untold billions from the gas tax increases which made so much sense given the rolling black-outs three weeks after Bush stepped into office.
You might be looking at a good slice of around 1.5 - 2 trillion bucks here for a measly 4 years worth of embarassment, not to mention legislation which bascially assures that you can’t be caught.
And, you rolled out the red carpet on any furture administration to have the same type of advantage by declaring a “war on terror”, in effect diverting civilian access or necessity for some sense of political transparency.
I’m not saying Bush is necesarily smart, but I’m not understanding how this is a disadvantage given the events since he took office.
I just see a bunch of guys with these huge smirks that they can’t wipe off their faces, while relishing in their roles of telling everyone how they should think and what they should/ should not can / cannot look into or say.
In fact, ‘everybody’ in that administration just seems to be smirking all the time; why?
I would suggest this as a much more plausible answer, given the tools at administrative disposal to either make the system more efficient in terms of global depopulation or public interest and access to the political process. The paper-work can’t be stacked THAT high!
-Justhink
And the thread skids off the tracks into the pit of the tinfoil hat people.
“”""“And the thread skids off the tracks into the pit of the tinfoil hat people.”""""
And you know this how? I’ll admit to this being a conspiracy. How exactly is your declaration a fact? If the conspiracy outlined were true (it certainly seems plausible); do you have a vested interest in it not being true? Does it negate the value of gossip you’ve been using to achieve relationships or actually threaten your very financial stability and capacity to fashion a livelyhood?
What interest do you have in debunking something so offhandedly? Does it violate every axiom of reason and rationality that humans require in order to survive? Would simple steps taken to analyze the situation deprive the U.S. of international security measures and make us vulnerable to hostile take-over of another country? Does it suggest something about the system structure itself which articulates a boundary which has been crossed between communication and citizenry?
Is it not in anyones interest to consider how a formulation like this can exist to such a degree that plausibility, opportunity, precidence and motive can all be accounted for?
What makes that possible? How does that exist? What is causing that loophole? Why would someone consider those loopholes as something to be of interest, to challenge, to inquire about? Why do people believe stuff like this in the first place, what allows that level of cynicism to emerge and how does it illustrate a violation of boundary?
These questions become much more acute when one considers the genetic revolution occurring, and the tangible benefits that will seek to further divide the haves and the have-nots.
Does it bother you on top of all of this that companies can register DNA sequences that foster intelligence as a trade secret patent blocked through defense department clearance to retrieve them; assuming you could even get far enough in the court process to determine that a trade secret patent is even involved, or that it even is registered in the defense department?
What makes you trust people so much Sam?
-Justhink
Some of you may enjoy this site. Some of you will hate it.
www.toostupidtobepresident.com
Jesus, this thread’s gone off it’s rocker. Why don’t we all just agree that it’s dead and let it sink.
At the very least because I think I’ve racked up a personal record for typos in one thread. “It’s?” sigh My HS English teacher would be ashamed.
Relax Justhink, you’re as likely to convince Sam Stone that Bush is a dim witted puppet to a corrupted administration with a misguided sense of justice as he is of convincing us that Bush is a bright and talented public servant with highly evolved morals and a vision of peace and prosperity for all in the 21st century.
But, we might as well be civil about it. The other option is to get upset and focus on the conflict not its cause. To assume conflict is inevitable and harmony is impossible. Which, as you said, is precisely what Bush is doing. He’s focusing America on the actual event of 9/11, the fear, the pain, the lost innocence, the need to be as strong and united now as any time in our history. All the while we are distracted from questioning why radical Islamists instigated a War with us. The enemy has been made faceless and mindless. There is no rationale behind his action; it was simple animalistic hatred and jealousy. Their way of life cannot coexist with ours so they need to wipe us out. These are the lies Bush has made his administration fat on. This is the legacy he chose for himself, or more likely was chosen for him.
In reality the vast majority of Muslims are not extremists and want to coexist peacefully with the West. They hate America all right, but not for the reasons Bush justifies his war with. They hate America because of the failing state of their societies after 100 years of Western imperialism in their lands, and specifically American intervention in the last 50. Oil was too important for developed nations to trust to democracy, and they created autocracies that they had powerful influence on. To hell with the people. What are a few ignorant nomads for the safety of billions of people? If there is no oil, there is no progress; no progress and capitalism fails, which could lead to chaos, anarchy, and possibly even, gasp… socialism. The arithmetic was easy, billions versus millions, we win they lose. So we installed fucked up regimes that sold us oil a real friendly prices and gave our some of our money back to us in exchange for our world famous military hardware. They gave financial “aid” to billionaire ruthless despots who cemented their hold in the region and its oil. Then administration after administration upheld the status quo and watched on, as the Middle East became the war torn, impoverished, pile of rubble it is today.
There are a lot of other grievances that have been tacked on, but I feel strongly that this is the fundamental rationale for Islamic revivalism and terrorism in the world today. I’m open to correction by any dopers that are very familiar with a Muslim community. Sam and Asylum can call us names all they like, but until they can provide a more believable story that has some backing I’ll stick to this one. The last post in this thread has links to the references for my story.
Getting back to the OP, see what the UK’s ultra-liberal Guardian says about Bush’s skills.
Cainxinth, grow up. You started this thread about how Bush didn’t have any basic skills and all I’ve done is argue against that. Contributing to a hijack of the thread doesn’t make your position any stronger. Not my fault if you can’t provide cites that aren’t blatantly biased and contradictory toward your OP.
And in case you missed it I’ll say it again: I don’t like Bush. And also for your information I’m fully aware of the West’s crappy treatment of the Middle East over the years and here’s proof. I do think the issue is more complicated then you’re implying and there are several points you make that I’d argue against but the basic jist I agree with.
And please don’t imply that I’ve participated in name calling when with a brief check it’s obvious that I haven’t.
Nice job vilifying me and trying to change the topic while issuing a call for civility.
Not surprising. Many illiterate people have very good memories. There’s some evidence that Bush is dyslexic, which would mostly likely mean that he reads slowly if at all.
As such, the notes wouldn’t be much use to him. But he would be quicker than average at memorizing a speach, which in the long run is an asset, because he could then deliver a stock speach ‘without notes’ and while making eye contact with the audience at all times.
Delivering from memory, rather than composing his own thoughts, would use different areas of the brain. It’s unsurprising that he would not have fluency problems when working from a memorized speach. His fluency is a cognitive problem, but delivering a speach from memory, really isn’t a cognitive process.
Doesn’t mean he isn’t a dim-wittited cowboy who cheated his way into the office. You would need to se him actually hold a conversation to dispell that stereotype.
Thought experiment: imagine GWB facing question time in the House of Commons. Now wouldn’t that be a spectacle?!
Could you elaborate?
Sam oh so wittily referred to me as a tin foil hat person, and you backed him up with, “Jesus, this thread’s gone off it’s rocker.”
That was not at all my intention, and I apologize if that’s how you interpreted it. I was just defending my position. And yes you’re right there aren’t many impartial sources that can scientifically verify that Bush is a fool and puppet. But, that doesn’t mean it isn’t so, or that anyone who thinks its possible is a conspiracy theory nut.
cainxinth:
Did not. I called JustThink a Tinfoil-Hat person. Evidence for the prosecution:
I think that means that Bush and his cronies are skimming off a couple of trillion dollars. Somehow, the treasury is involved. And I think Enron was milked by the Bush administration or something. To be honest, I’m not sure. I didn’t quite get the part about Bush causing the rolling blackouts in California, or how the Tobacco Tax fits into the conspiracy. I’m sure it makes sense to someone.
I thought JustThink was referring to the Big Tax Rebate – IOW, saying that Bush was buying approval by giving cash back to the electorate, at the expense of exacerbating the national debt. But I don’t understand the middle paragraph at all – I think there are some unwritten assumptions there that JustThink takes as given and the rest of us don’t.
I could but I won’t. Not trying to sound snide but that’s the sort of question that quickly goes into a GD, and I don’t post in GD often simply because I don’t have the time. Furthermore debating the West’s culpability regarding its treatment of the Middle East is not why I entered this thread.**
I wasn’t backing up Sam’s comment, I was making one of my own. If you go back and look there were something like ten posts immediately preceding mine that had nothing to do with the OP and covered pretty varied ground. That’s what I was referring to when I said this thread had gone off its rocker.**
That’s my point cainxinth, you were getting defensive about a position that had nothing to do with the OP and then accusing me of belittling your position on it when I never said one word about it. You wanna take this thread in another direction, fine. Just don’t ignore my arguments and then toss me in with the opposing side of a debate that I never entered.
And as for there not being any cites that scientifically verify if Bush is moron, there are no cites that scientifically verify that there are green men living on Mars. Maybe that’s becuase there aren’t any and because Bush isn’t an idiot. It’s like I said before, the evidence overwhelming supports the conclusion that Bush is of at least average intelligence if not above. The largest evidence I’ve seen in support of Bush being an idiot is that he misspeaks in public, and the counter argument to that was pretty well covered on the first page of this thread.
Listen, I already apologized for misinterpeting your standpoint. I did not realize that when you said “this thread has gone off its rocker” you were refering to everyone knocking Bush except me. Lets get back to the question at hand: Is Bush a fool? You claim “overwhelming” evidence to the contrary, but I still haven’t seen it. Here is a recap of the evidence in favor of the proposition.
All politicians make verbal gaffes now and again. Bush has a higher propensity for them than most as catalogued by NYU professor of media studies Mark Crispin Miller in a well recieved book.
Bush told an interviewer for “Talk” Magazine that he was not very good at reading in-depth public policy books. There are plenty of jobs where that isn’t a cause for concern, but President of the United States isn’t one of them, and while it doesn’t prove he’s an idiot, it certainly doesn’t speak highly of his intellect
(cite).
NY Times columnist and Bush proponent William Safire told a chapel full of people at Syracuse University that Bush is a quick study that lacks the ability to grasp deeper understanding of the issues he has to make decisions on. He also said that he suspects that Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are really running the country right now, Powell is just there to keep a foot on the brake, and Rice is Bush’s glorified translator. Every president utilizes their advisors, but Bush is utterly dependent on his. He isn’t now and likely never will be competent to make big decisions without his cabinet. Even during the campaign he was open to the public that he lacks the knowledge and experience to run the country and would surround himself with people who were competent for the job.
Bush holds fewer press conferences than any other President.
Bush chalks it up to a need for greater secrecy post 9/11, but here is a Salon piece dating back to march of 2001 discussing the unusual infrequency of his press conferences at that time because he wasn’t yet “comfortable” with the press. As a political candidate surely he was familiar with the harsh grilling of a seasoned press corp. But as president he could finally turn down press conferences. I don’t think it takes a huge leap of faith to say the guy is not at ease with people asking him difficult questions. It’s not because he’s shy, most reports say he’s quite affable and charming. It’s because like reading big books on public policy, answering tough questions is not one of his strong points. Which also doesn’t speak highly of his intelligence.