Or IMO, the misinformed. :thumb:

 

That too...

Well, if that's true, it's clear he doesn't consult his IQ when speaking or making decisions …

Well, if that's true, it's clear he doesn't consult his IQ when speaking or making decisions …

In a generation that values form over substance, your response is not unusual, nor does it surprise me.

Well, if that's true, it's clear he doesn't consult his IQ when speaking or making decisions …

 

Yeah, he uses tarot cards and then rubs his rabbit's foot real hard.

In a generation that values form over substance, your response is not unusual, nor does it surprise me.

 

Look, check out the stuff I listen to in the music threads. I think you will definitely find that I definitely swim against the grain. Substance is all that matters to me, and I see none of it in him. He makes dumb decisions, bottom line, and refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with his preconceived notions. That tells me he lacks both form and substance …

Yeah, he uses tarot cards and then rubs his rabbit foot real hard.

 

He'd probably be more effective as a Prez if he did …

Lets stay on the topic and off of each other.

Look, check out the stuff I listen to in the music threads. I think you will definitely find that I definitely swim against the grain. Substance is all that matters to me, and I see none of it in him. He makes dumb decisions, bottom line, and refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with his preconceived notions. That tells me he lacks both form and substance …

To be absolutely clear, I was not slamming you personally Jim. Rereading my post, I can see how you might take it that way, and for that I apologize.

 

I was merely expressing my frustration with a culture that promotes Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Lil Kim, Pink, Madonna, Angelina Jolie and a cadre of other vacuous celebrities as role models for our children, as well as egomaniacal power graspers like John Kerry as presidential material.

 

Bottom line is I think we make too big a deal of meaningless superficial qualities and completely undervalue the character traits that matter most in the long term.

To be absolutely clear, I was not slamming you personally Jim. Rereading my post, I can see how you might take it that way, and for that I apologize.

 

I was merely expressing my frustration with a culture that promotes Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Lil Kim, Pink, Madonna, Angelina Jolie and a cadre of other vacuous celebrities as role models for our children, as well as egomaniacal power graspers like John Kerry as presidential material.

 

Bottom line is I think we make too big a deal of meaningless superficial qualities and completely undervalue the character traits that matter most in the long term.

 

Gotcha! And I agree. No offense taken. :thumb:

 

But I still think Dubya is lacking in both style and substance. (not that this is a big secret … )

Gotcha! And I agree. No offense taken. :thumb:

 

But I still think Dubya is lacking in both style and substance. (not that this is a big secret … )

I will concede your point on style. I disagree on substance.

I will concede your point on style. I disagree on substance.

And I think that is part of his problem. He would have been a better accepted President 100 years ago when the media couldn't portray him as some dumb yuck simply because he is not as polished a speaker as some before him.

 

Clinton was a master at covering up his lack of substance, ethics and morals with a first rate style. He was a media darling because he could look you in the eye, lie to you and you KNOW it and still convince you to give him your last dollar. He was a used-car salesman to the nth degree.

 

Bush does not have that panache.

And I think that is part of his problem. He would have been a better accepted President 100 years ago when the media couldn't portray him as some dumb yuck simply because he is not as polished a speaker as some before him.

 

Clinton was a master at covering up his lack of substance, ethics and morals with a first rate style. He was a media darling because he could look you in the eye, lie to you and you KNOW it and still convince you to give him your last dollar. He was a used-car salesman to the nth degree.

 

Bush does not have that panache.

 

 

Are you sure about that? Have you ever seen the way the press treated Lincoln? And that was just the Northern Press!

 

Go back and look at a history of the print media, editorialism and lampooning the Presidents. There has never been a truly "safe" time for any president.

 

I think Bush would have been been lampooned just as heavily in any era.

Are you sure about that? Have you ever seen the way the press treated Lincoln? And that was just the Northern Press!

 

Go back and look at a history of the print media, editorialism and lampooning the Presidents. There has never been a truly "safe" time for any president.

 

I think Bush would have been been lampooned just as heavily in any era.

I was thinking the visual images. Letterman showing EVERY SINGLE NIGHT him stumbling over a word. All of the comics calling him dumb because he is not glib with his speech.

 

I wonder if the same amount of people read the newspaper 100 years ago that watches Letterman or the late night comics now.

 

Also, he wouldn't have been giving as many speeches, press conferences etc, to stumble over his tongue as he done in today's tv driven culture.

I was thinking the visual images. Letterman showing EVERY SINGLE NIGHT him stumbling over a word. All of the comics calling him dumb because he is not glib with his speech.

 

I wonder if the same amount of people read the newspaper 100 years ago that watches Letterman or the late night comics now.

 

Also, he wouldn't have been giving as many speeches, press conferences etc, to stumble over his tongue as he done in today's tv driven culture.

 

 

Considering literacy rates I doubt as many papers were "read" but the cartoons were something else. That's all I'm pointing out LBC, many past Presidents were vilified.

 

If I recall I believe Chester Arthur was accused of lechery and fathering a child out of wedlock. There was even a song about it.

 

FDR wasn't above the frey either in the 30's.

 

Andrew Jackson was a drunken despot to the media.

 

Taft was a glutton who was stuck in his own bath tub once. People forget the keen mind he had on the Supreme Court.

 

All I'm saying is that it wouldn't matter when Bush was President, his poor grammatical skills would have haunted him anytime. Maybe worse in the past when you consider how eloquent many leaders wrote 100+ years ago.

Why does a smart person like you fall for this baloney?

 

I'm not out to defend Bush as much as I want to point out how a lie repeated long enough and loud enough becomes accepted as truth.

 

A variety of sources have established that Bush's I.Q. falls somewhere in the 125-130 range. That is in the top 10% of the entire population. Not an Einstein or Galileo Galilei perhaps, but far from being a dolt and about 10 I.Q. points above John F. Kennedy.

 

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815202310/http:/www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue320/item7250.asp

 

A fair question, Fastbreak. Let me say that when I question Bush's intelligence, it would probably be more accurate for me to challenge his wisdom.

 

I was once involved in a roundtable discussion that tried to define "wisdom" without the benefit of a dictionary. As a group, we batted it around for a short while, and settled on something very close to this:

"Wisdom is the judicious use of knowledge for the common good".

 

Not really sure what Webster's would define it as, but I've always liked that working definition.

 

In that context, I would be more correct in saying that I find Bush incredibly lacking in wisdom.

 

In a nutshell, it's not unlike Forrest Gump's famous line "Stupid is, as stupid does".

 

I distinctly remember watching Bush before the first election, and how underwhelmed I was at his ability to think on his feet. I truly believe that if he had not had Karl Rove standing beside him whispering "Stick with the talking points - don't answer the question", he would have been exposed as a rather slow-witted person.

 

I saw a Democratic talking head on television the other day, right after the election, spewing his opinion that this election showed that Rove is not a political genius. I find that hilarious, and very much wrongheaded. Without Rove, W would never have won the Republican nomination for the presidency in the first place. Without Rove, W would never have been elected governor of Texas. Without Rove, W would have been soundly defeated in 2004. Regardless of how one sees Rove's tactics when pursuing political power, one should NEVER underestimate him.

 

As for Bush, I know that many people see his inability to pronounce "Nuclear", but that is not that big a deal to me. What I do find revealing is the unending string of malaprops that he utters. I sometimes think I'm watching Yogi Berra give a speech when W is talking. To me, that is not the sign of a highly intelligent individual - regardless of any test scores. If W were trying to address an issue that is highly technical, I wouldn't expect him to waltz through the subject matter. That is why President's have advisors. On the other hand, when I see him continually butcher common phrases like "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me" or "A mind is a terrible thing to waste", I truly doubt that he's lacing his own shoes in the morning.

 

 

 

Frances