I didn’t say he did. I suspect that he does, but I don’t know that. All I know for sure is that he thinks God wants him to start wars and that the victims of those wars are mostly Muslims.
“War on Terror” is pretty much a semantically vacant phrase, btw. We haven’t formally declared any such war, nor have we defined an enemy, nor have we defined any goals for such a “war.” The “War on Terror” is no more meaningful that the “war on drugs” or the “war on poverty.” It’s just a catchprase.
** Dewey stands up, applauds, waves lit cigarette lighter in the air, applauds some more. Woman two rows in front throws panties on stage. **
Well said, my good man, well said.
Great. But agnostic does not equal atheist. You said Lincoln was an atheist. Your cite does not say that. Perhaps when making claims of fact, such as you did here, you will learn to be a bit more circumspect.
Surely you’ve been around the SDMB long enough to know that “atheist” does not have to imply a positive denial of theism, It just means “not theistic,” “Weak” atheism is virtually identical to agnosticism.
Actually, I think it stands up quite well even to deeper scrutiny.
No, its the fact that there are too many stupid people that don’t see how stupid he is that’s going to get him 4 more years in office.
Actually, some sects teach that non-Christians could go to heaven. For example someone who never heard about Christianity but led a good and moral life, would go to heaven.
Also, just because someone is a “great mind”, doesn’t mean they can’t hold a couple beliefs that are stupid.
Enlighten us then, Oh sage and eminient SDMB junky, because my recollection of the two threads in GD dealing with the Bush is a stupid moron topic, the pro-Bush is stupid arguements were pretty weak and mostly biased (waving hands ‘He’s stupid because he is! Plus he talks funny too!’). If it stands up to even ‘deeper scrutiny’ you must be privy to some data that didn’t make it into the threads I remember…please feel free to share and enjoy.
:rolleyes: Of course Bush wouldn’t get re-elected otherwise. Hell, he’s too stupid to tie his shoes. He just kind of wandered into becoming president…sort of fell into it really. And only morons would vote for him anyway.
Nice the way folks tend to demonize the political opposition around here and make it seem like a debate.
Hell, if you KNOW this, the GW REALLY thinks God personally wanted him/told him to start wars, I’d like to see the cite. Dont hold out on us DtC.
-XT
Diogenes:
That’s a hell of a lot different from what you said earlier, Diogenes.
In addition, that’s quite an arguable point. He has engaged in wars on two fronts: Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Afghanistan certainly can’t be described as started by him, as they were sheltering the people who attacked the US on 9/11. While it’s somewhat flimsy to tie the Iraq war to the war on terror in general, Iraq’s violations of the terms of its 1991 surrender could have been considered acts of war as well.
Not that this has anything to do with the discussion, but: I’m the SDMB junky?
xtisme: Total Posts: 1,403 (3.49 posts per day)
Polerius: Total Posts: 76 (2.72 posts per day)
You obviously don’t understand the most basic fact:
You and the “Bush is not stupid” camp think the “Bush is stupid” arguments were pretty weak and mostly biased.
The “Bush is stupid” camp thought the “Bush is not stupid” arguments were weak and mostly biased.
So, were does that leave us? No side has convinced the other, so it was wrong of John Mace to claim “it just doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny”,
because that was just his personal opinion. There was no consensus at the end of any post where the “Bush is stupid” camp said: “You know guys, we were wrong, Bush is not stupid”
When I said that the “Bush is stupid” arguments stand up to even deeper scrutiny, I was being sarcastic in response to John Mace’s statement.
And by claiming that only the “Bush is stupid” arguments were weak and biased, while ignoring the possibility that the other arguments might be weak and biased shows not only how biased you are, but how lacking you are in self-examination
(“I’m not being convinced, but neither are they. Therefore, their arguments must be weak and biased”)
You most certainly did:
Sorry, it was an obscure Dark Tower reference…sometimes I say wierd things just to amuse myself. It wasn’t meant as anything at all, just tickled my fancy. I’m over it now. 
Not at all. I can’t stand the man…I certainly never voted for him. I’m perfectly willing to be convinced that Bush is stupid. However, all the ‘proof’ I saw was horseshit. It broke down mostly to the fact that Bush isn’t a very good public speaker, so he’s obviously stupid. Then it went round and round as to what exactly ‘stupid’ was.
[QUOTE=Polerius]
So, were does that leave us? No side has convinced the other, so it was wrong of John Mace to claim “it just doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny”,
because that was just his personal opinion. There was no consensus at the end of any post where the “Bush is stupid” camp said: "You know guys, we were wrong, Bush is not stupid"QUOTE]
But see, again you are wrong. On ‘casual scrutiny’ it DOESN’T stand up that Bush is stupid. He’s a freaking college graduate for gods sake. Ok, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but I don’t know of many people at ‘moron’ intellegence level that have graduated from a respected college. He was also a fighter pilot, so he had to be at least semi-literate and intellegent. So, looking at it casually, I’d say that a normal unbiased person would agree the person in question was neither a ‘moron’ (which means of well below average intellegence) nor ‘stupid’ (which has no direct definition).
In addition, SOMEONE with a brain is certainly running the shop, because I’ve seen some very good political manuvering from Bush since he’s been in office. Sure, it might not be him, but then again it might be. So, on CASUAL scrutiny, the statement that Bush is stupid DOESN’T HOLD UP.
Oh. Well, use :rolleyes: or :dubious: next time…I totally missed this whoosh. When addressing my gaffs, I recommend using this :wally as its pretty appropriate sometimes.
But you are making the unfounded assumption I AM biased towards GW. I’m not. I can certainly be convinced…but I need more than ‘he talks funny’ or ‘well, I just know he is’. Show me test scores indicating he has below normal cognative abilities. Show me evaluations by doctors, or teachers…hell, ANYTHING. But don’t use invective and hyperbole and expect me to be convinced. I certainly saw nothing remotely convincing in the various threads on this topic.
-XT
Yikes! Boy, did I mess up the coding there. Lets see…it SHOULD have been:
But see, again you are wrong. On ‘casual scrutiny’ it DOESN’T stand up that Bush is stupid. He’s a freaking college graduate for gods sake. Ok, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but I don’t know of many people at ‘moron’ intellegence level that have graduated from a respected college. He was also a fighter pilot, so he had to be at least semi-literate and intellegent. So, looking at it casually, I’d say that a normal unbiased person would agree the person in question was neither a ‘moron’ (which means of well below average intellegence) nor ‘stupid’ (which has no direct definition).
In addition, SOMEONE with a brain is certainly running the shop, because I’ve seen some very good political manuvering from Bush since he’s been in office. Sure, it might not be him, but then again it might be. So, on CASUAL scrutiny, the statement that Bush is stupid DOESN’T HOLD UP.
Oh. Well, use :rolleyes: or :dubious: next time…I totally missed this whoosh. When (you are) addressing my gaffs (in future), I recommend using this ( :wally ) as its pretty appropriate sometimes.
Sorry about that if there was any confusion. I usually let my own errors go, but didn’t want anything I was saying to be interpereted as an insult…it kind of looked that way when I read it with the screwed up encoding.
Reguards,
XT
Diogenes the Cynic, Just a friendly reminder that you still haven’t provided cites for these statements. I have even bolded specifically what I feel you need cites for.
Everyone should’ve known from the title and OP that this’d be a trainwreck fo a thread.
With a degree from a university with a reputable education research program, twenty years in a high school classroom and post graduate work in educational psychology, I feel a little qualified to speculate. (It’s a little like diagnosing a patient without fulling examining him.)
President Bush is not a moron. I would think that he is probably on the higher end of average with an I.Q. of perhaps 110. His level of verbal skill may reflect both his thinking processes and psychological makeup.
President Clinton has an I.Q. probably around 165. (He was a Rhodes Scholar.) I think that he and President Bush share one thing in common besides Yale. Both are, in their own ways, still stranded in adolescence either emotionally or morally. President Clinton is more manipulative; President Bush is more stubborn and vindictive.
Why are you so easily manipulated by the opinions of others about someone you dislike? Acknowledge and xercise self-control. No one is dragging you anywhere.
Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I think that it is actually an impossibility to underestimate President Bush.
No jab at you personally, but this story sounds totally bogus. I don’t think that Barbara Bush would tolerate disturbing the Rev. Graham with such a question. I cannot imagine it. Further, and more to the point, these are not the views that I have heard the Rev. Billy Graham express. He believes that there will be many in heaven who are not known to us as Christians. The scripture that he uses to back this up is “Many sheep have I that are not of this fold.” These are views that I have heard expressed by Billy Graham’s son, the Rev. Franklin Graham. He and his father disagree.
it’s not a trainwreck, it’s a hijack, but everyone appears to be having fun, so I’m cool with it. 
The story comes from GWB himself in an interview with the NY Times Magazine and was widely picked up by other publications during the 2000 campaign. Here’s a summary of the story from Jewish World Review.
I’d also like to remind you about an oval office tape which recorded a conversation between Graham and Richard Nixon in which the two traded anti-semitic comments:
I used to think Billy Graham was different than the rest. I don’t anymore.
Which woul;d make him one of the 2000 smartest men in America. Not friggin’ likely.
What are you basing this on? Do you have any of Bush’s IQ exam scores? I’m not sure whether this is a wild ass guess or you have some data on this. If its a wild ass guess, tell me what you think my IQ is and I’ll decide how good you are at cold evaluations from someone you never met.
Again, where do you get this IQ…its pretty much in the ‘genus’ category. Do you have a cite for this or is it again a WAG on your part?
I like to argue…thats why I come on this board. I don’t like to run with the herd. I also don’t like unfounded attacks. I’ve defended Clinton too (someone else I’m not exactly enamored with), and argued both sides of the war in Iraq when folks felt the need to bring in false positions. You are right though…no one is dragging me in. Its my own stuborness and vindictiveness. I’m also manipulative. But I’ve never stained a blue dress that wasn’t my wifes, nor have I gotten us into a war we didn’t need to be involved in, so I do have my redeeming points.
Suit yourself. I think you are wrong about him, and its this kind of attitude that scares me in people. I think he’s a hell of a lot more canny than folks give him credit for. All they see is the the exterior, and I think he plays up the ‘good ole boy’ bit intentionally so that folks like you will underestimate him. Well, I suppose we’ll see in November.
-XT
Starting off with a condemnation of people by means of a straw man definitely constitutes a train wreck.
Sorry, chuckles. GW and most of the founding Fathers were deists; which involves a) belief in a creator or lawgiver and/or b) a belief that there are moral laws and absolutes, and usually c) a belief that human life has a destiny or purpose. GWB’s belief that he has been “chosen” for this moment in history – whether you want to call it Fate or God or Providence – is by no means out of the mainstream of their thought.
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/g/ge/george_washington.html
http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
http://www.deism.org/abrahamlincoln.htm
The larger point is that many, many brilliant people hold to beliefs that are, to others, “stupid.” I give you Bobby Fischer (although I suppose you could argue that he’s just mentally ill; nevertheless I think you get my point). Anyone who has lived to thirty and is at all thoughtful has had the experience of meeting highly intelligent people with whom you disagree, and moreover of having some of their own ideas and beliefs change with time.
The mature adult’s response to this is to realize that good, intelligent people can disagree – even over seemingly fundamental and “obvious truths,” and that they can do so respectfully. Unfortunately, that is not your pattern.