Bush struggles with communication but I can't seem to grasp how he struggles with history of situations so much. He is meant to have a BA from Yale in History.

Personnally I think you can't be President unless you are some way intelligent. He obviously doesn't have the intellectual grasp of Clinton and also doesn't have his interest for detail of a situation.

So he struggles and communication and being some what bright but is no Einstein. Was there not someone from 350 million people who were better qualified?

I thought it was said earlier in the thread that he had only an MBA?

Than Kerry or Bush? Oh bush, well he was voted in by a majority no? Do you have a problem with the democratic system or bush, i'm confused now.

How can someone so (allegedly) stupid, evil and hell bent on destruction get voted over the opposition? Dumb voters?

Should we IQ test voters? If you feel that way at all the you are pretty far from the country's founding ideals of one person one vote.

Bad form again for discussing moderator actions in the forum.

Perhaps you can point out/ prove the lie, gay gigilo?

__________________
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men... are endowed by [B]their Creator [/B]with certain unalienable rights..."
"... In Order to... secure [B]the Blessings [/B]of Liberty... do [B]ordain[/B] and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That was his Masters. You can't get a master without your bachelors first. Bush got a Bachelors of Arts in History from Yale..

I never said anything like that. I just asked that there should be a better option for a president...

Well, I'm not sure that I'm a "social-engineering" leftie (not sure exactly what that is, anyway), but I'd say a few things about IQ tests, given that I studied them in school:

1) It's impossible to quantify "intelligence." Hell, it's nigh impossible to define it.

2) It's completely reasonable to have someone who we may consider to be brilliant, yet who is not a good speaker. There are great speakers who may not be considered of above-average intelligence.

3) There is an inherent cultural bias to most IQ tests, but again the number is irrelevant.



Also, just out of curiosity, is it possible for y'all (not pointing at you, Fenian, but in general) to discuss a topic without all the bullshit? Just once?

__________________
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Herman Goering

Is it REALLY that boring around here lately ?

That we're responding to such childish crap ?

Have fun then

__________________
[I]They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator. . . . Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature.[/I] - Romans 1:25-26

Use liberals artistic manipulation of logic and language against them.

That's not such a bad idea after all. I mean, who is more at fault following the last election? A decorated war hero; or a man who went AWOL from National guard service - yet many people believe Bush to be a better war leader than Kerry. Prior to being elected president, Bush had never bee outside the USA, yet he was deemed a better leader in foreign affairs than Kerry. The list goes on. It's not so much a reflection on the candidates as the voter. Parties put up candidates that have the best chance of being elected. If we, as voters, as so ignorant, unassuming, or stupid to weed out the trash, then that is OUR problem. Parties know that the voting public are stupid, which is why they'll elect mediocre candidates. It's the basic theory of supply and demand. If we don't expect much of our candidates, and will elect them anyhow, then Parties won't bother putting up more credible ones. Rather than point the finger at Bush, or Kerry et al, we should rather be asking the question of the people as to why we repeatedly and consistently vote for them.

__________________
Facts shmacts. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.