quick answer...

W is stupid enough to let evil men like Cheney, Rumsfield, etc run this country.

Business as usual eh? I don't think Bush is either of those things myself, you can disagree with him all you want but calling names is childish nonsense.

While all Clinton did was fucking his secretary and cheating on his wife, Bush is threatening world peace and destroying the enviroment.

Bush is threatening world peace?

I think the way he is handling foreign affairs is adversely affecting our chances of global stability.

Perhaps in the short term, but if he succeeds things will work out way better in the long run. Iraq is not a threat to GLOBAL stability. It was meant to shake things up in the Mideast and struck terror into all of those assfuck leaders.

I am willing to concede that I can not definatively negate your proposition.

I would point out, however, that Bush's actions are no closer to succeeding now than they were six months ago. I do not know your exact definition of success but my take on what would constitute success is that the UN gets involved and that various nations supply troops and money.

I think this is Bush's goal, as well, since he gave them a speech to that effect. The problem I saw was that his speech was no different than the last ones his administration gave to the UN before the shit was hitting the fan--and those speeches didn't garner support either.

I don't agree with your assessment here. I also doubt that the Bush administration agrees with your assessment, either.

Regardless, I stated that our country's policies--not Iraq--were threatening global stability; I didn't limit my assertion to the Iraq fiasco.

It's all political bullshit, I doubt anyone else will jump in because they want to see us sweat.

I agree that they want to see us sweat but not that it's political bullshit.

Our country's administration and mainstream media have spent the past half year attacking the UN and various powerful nations as irrelevant in world affairs--there isn't much incentive to risk lives or money in those circumstances.

Regardless if the administration agrees with anyone with half a brain should realize that Iraq was not a threat to our National Security or stability. Plus I don't any major implications of instability from our actions except for all of the political bullshit that it has generated.

But for the shake of discussion, could you please list some of these policies you feel are threatening stability?

I am concerned that we have undermined our society's notion of the rule of law.

We are advocating a policy of pre-emption (which also violates our core notion of due process as well as sets a dangerous precendent for others to follow).

We are undermining the authority and legitimacy of multi-national organizations, such as, the United Nations which, despite our disdain for it, is actually taken very seriously in many nations.

-Wars on concepts rather than nations (ie: war on terror, war on drugs)

-First strike policies

-Ignoring international consensus

-Dropping of global treaties such as Kyoto or ABM Treaties

Essentially, these and other actions have shown the US to be a loose cannon of sorts. Even though we have had the power to go it our own way for decades we have always tried to respect the international communities general will and policies for the sake of stability which came from their security that they had some control over us and the mutual benefits that naturally come from any group of entities tying themselves together. Now we have spat in the face of all of that many times over since 9/11. There is something to be said for being independent, but their is also something to be said for confederacy. We have placed the rest of the planet in a very awkward position by our audacity and now they have to decide what if anything to do about it because their sovereignty and futures could easily hang in the balance.

Iraq might not have been a good example for pre-emption, but the principle in of itself is both righteous and necessary. THe country has a duty to protect its citizens and I agree with Bush when he said waiting to get hit first is suicide.

The U.N. showed through this whole fiasco that it has no authority or legitimacy. Iraq had disobeyed 17 resolutions over the course of 10 years.

Also I think your parallel of pre-emption to violating due process is completely off base and doesn't factor in to matters of National Security.

I'm not going to bicker with you.

I'm not arguing over the legality of our actions. The notion of due process is that we follow a set process.

The crime occurs-->the suspect is apprehended-->the suspect is tried and either acquitted or convicted

Your concern that waiting until someone strikes first being suicidal notwithstanding, our core legal and democratic principles mandate that we wait until a crime occurs before we apprehend or attack.

The U.N. is showing that it has both immense political power and is extremely relevant. I find it odd that one would argue for aid from the U.N. but then argue for its irrelevancy once it refuses to grant such aid. The members are exhibiting exactly what it is in place to do--to constrain unilateral/pre-emptive action that potentially creates a destabalizing effect.

If the various nations don't step in soon our economy will continue to crumble. Economists from both sides of the ideological spectrum have been arguing that our long-term economic prospects are dire, despite what may occur in the short-term.

Our own actions are creating the circumstances of our own global decline--the U.N. merely has to wait us out until we self-destruct and we are plodding along true to historical trends.

If we are in decline then chances are the rest of the world is too. If we go under the U.N. is coming with us, hell it wasn't but a couple years ago we had to bail them out financially. The U.N. showed what it really stands for. It's not Nations coming together to work for something... It regimes coming to a place to serve their own selfish needs and ambitions.

I'm not an apologist for the U.N. and I doubt that you are going to rethink your stance. Good night.

Thank you for that. For whatever reason we have become the self-appointed "babysitter" for the rest of the world. Why? Even more important...why do we insist on involving ourselves in matters and situations that we cannot hope to completely understand?

I think that sometimes we need to hear that we have bad breath from a "friend"...before we'll really listen.

I think Bush is as human as the rest of us. As an intelligent person, I won't bother making a judgement on Bush's intellect. I don't care if people think he's stupid. Stupid is quite a relative term. I think that Bush believes that he is doing the right thing for America. I don't buy into the Bush as Hitler scenario. I'm sure some Auschwitz survivors would probably tell you that living under Bush, is much better. I think as a human, he has made many mistakes, and I'm certainly not an apologist for him. Its a job I would never want. I can't imagine the pressure that a US President goes through. It amazes me that any president has survived a term let alone two. I have some degree of faith over the current administration, but I watch with an eagle eye. I still haven't made up my mind about 2004. Bush has a very brash approach to things, which is sometimes very necessary, and other times it can damage us. I think that many of his actions were necessary to begin with, but it may take somebody new to see them through. I believe that the middle eastern region will be better because of Iraq, but maybe not until somebody else takes over the helm. Which is unfortunate because the president that takes it over will get credited for it, even though they could not have set things in motion without Bush busting up the place first.

IMO, the President is neither stupid nor evil.
He is a good and decent man, smarter than most, and a great Chief Executive in very difficult times.

Is Bush stupid or evil?

He is sometimes stupid and sometimes evil. He is definitely corrupt.

Let's be honest, he is neither stupid nor evil. The question is loaded and unfair. Mr. Bush is an intelligent man, with stong convictions and is a better than average politician. He also has surrounded himself with intelligent, savvy people who assist him and indeed guide him down the dangerous path that is the Presidency. All this being said, it appears (to me) that his assumptions and beliefs, as well as many of his top advisors, are misguided and in fact are doing damage to our nation and the international community. Many people who are smart make bad decisions and this President has had some great challenges thrown at him, he just hasn't made too many great decisions.

I have to disagree.

The man is a first class moron. I can think of no other american president in my life time that i would apply this label to.

He can read a teleprompter, but that's about it.

He shuns press conferences because he knows that he will have to think on the spot and he is unable to do that. If it isn't scripted, he can not handle it.

On the odd occasion where he does speak, i find myself pulling the blanket over my head because i can not bear to watch anyone struggle so much.

Saturday night live had it right 3 and half years ago when they paradied (spelling) him getting all freaked out at the thought of actually being president. He's in way over his head.

JMHO

It's lucky for him that in the last election, Gore wasn't a hell of a lot better.

You had two doofusses to choose from.

Ignorance plays out as evil in one with such power.

I'm writing in Lurkette in 2004! All hail lurkette!

In America, most corruption is made legal anyway.

I dont think he is exceptionally bright, nor a good politician. Yes, i do think his decisions are seriously effecting global security and im glad so many people are of this same opinion.

He might not be as stupid as some, but he's certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It amazes me how many US citizens think he's doing a good job. Can't they see how he's ruining what's left of your international reputation?
When I watch him during a speech, I don't see a good leader with good sound ideas, I see an idiot that shouldn't be where he is.

w00t!!! I got a vote!!!

My first official act would be to appoint JadziaDax as secretary of education, Halx as secretary of health and human development, ART as my offical spokesperson, and sixate as Secretary of State. Diplomacy be damned ;)

I'd make a terrible president :D
But thanks for the vote :)

From Cecil Adams
 

In 1999 the NewYorker obtained a copy of the future president's Yale transcript and revealed that he'd had a C average in college and, more interestingly, scored 1206 on his Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)--566 on the verbal and 640 on the math.

To find out how this score stacked up, I called Educational Testing Service, publisher of the SAT, and learned that in 1994, SAT scores had been "re-centered." To offset the steady downward drift of test scores over the years, the scoring scale was adjusted upward so that the mean score for both math and verbal was again 500 (the midpoint on a scale of 200 to 800). Those who took the test before 1994 are now entitled to add a prescribed amount to their scores to see how they compare to students today. Having made the necessary adjustment, Little Ed announced, "I got 800 on my verbal! I'm a direct beneficiary of the stupidity of the American public!" Doing the same for Bush gives him 640 on both verbal and math, good enough for 88th percentile on the verbal and 86th in math were he entering college now. Those scores may not be as high as mine, of course, or even Al Gore's (625 verbal, 730 math unadjusted), but they ain't bad.

Then again, I recall having seen a college guide circa 1970 that listed the average SAT for Yale freshmen as about 670 in verbal, 705 in math. So Bush was well below average for his class. He must have written a great essay.

(2) Is Bush the stupidest president? Doubtful, but here the data is lacking. You can get a book called The Intelligence of Dogs but not The Intelligence of Presidents. I refrain from the obvious jokes. The best I could come up with was a 1926 list in which intelligence researcher Catharine M. Cox estimated the IQs of 300 famous people based on their achievements in childhood and early adulthood. Presidents ran the gamut from John Quincy Adams (165) to Thomas Jefferson (150) to Ulysses Grant (125). She didn't single out stupid presidents, but near the top of everyone's list you're sure to find Warren G. Harding, probably the nation's least competent chief executive, who described himself as "a man of limited talents from a small town. . . . I don't seem to grasp that I am president." Among presidents since FDR, political scientist Fred I. Greenstein (Presidential Difference: Leadership Style From FDR to Clinton) cites Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan as being "marked by cognitive limitations," although even detractors would concede they had their gifts.

Smarts aren't easy to judge. Greenstein gives John F. Kennedy high marks for brains, but according to biographer Thomas C. Reeves (author of the infamous A Question of Character), Kennedy as a kid scored a less-than-brilliant 119 on the Otis Intelligence Test and graduated 65th out of 110 at Choate. And remember Bill Bradley, who everybody considered brainy but boring? His verbal SAT score, according to Slate: just 485

Phaenx, it's not that Bush is stupid per se, in terms of IQ etc., it's that he's "intellectually incurious" (can't remember who said that but it's a good phrase and I'm stealing it) and has no willingness - let's leave capacity out of it for now - to grasp complexities. He might be a good manager, and even a good leader in some situations, but as chief executive of the single superpower in the world right now, he just doesn't have what it takes, IMHO, to comprehend the long-term consequences of his actions. He's left that to a bunch of neo-con fanatics who have basically thrown down the gauntlet by alienating an emerging global coalition and made a bid for American hegemony, handed over the reins of the government, the environment, etc., to corporate interests, and ensured a series of deficits that will make government spending on social programs an impossibility. Having left my crystal ball in my other pants, I have no idea what's going to come of this but I fear it's going to be disastrous even if he's not "elected" to a second term. Again: stupid? No. Evil? mmmmm.....no. An ideologue with no respect for facts? Yup.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
[B] Iraq might not have been a good example for pre-emption, but the principle in of itself is both righteous and necessary. THe country has a duty to protect its citizens and I agree with Bush when he said waiting to get hit first is suicide.[QUOTE]
Do you have so little faith in our country? Do you really think 1 attack, even biological, could wipe out AMERICA ?
Remember Churchill and the brave people of England during WWII. I have talked many times to a great woman who was in London during the bombings, and she's much like you and I. I have to say we would not only survive, but come out swinging righteously and win.
Attacking Iraq using an unrelated event (9/11) as an excuse is simply chicken-shit. I believe in peace. If we have to choose between taking the first blow or pre-emtion, I'll take the first blow like a man, thank you very much. Acting from a place of fear is not patriotic. It's neurotic.
And if we were to attack Iraq, then at least we could be honest in our reasons, not waffling like the administration did. First it was yellowcake, then terrorists, and finally to liberate the Iraqi people..Oh please! We should just hand out a multiple-choice sheet so other countries can pick their favorite answer!
Bush and his chicken-hawks are scared little boys with real weapons, not patriots!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by skinbag
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Iraq might not have been a good example for pre-emption, but the principle in of itself is both righteous and necessary. THe country has a duty to protect its citizens and I agree with Bush when he said waiting to get hit first is suicide.

Quote:

Do you have so little faith in our country? Do you really think 1 attack, even biological, could wipe out AMERICA ? Remember Churchill and the brave people of England during WWII. I have talked many times to a great woman who was in London during the bombings, and she's much like you and I. I have to say we would not only survive, but come out swinging righteously and win. Attacking Iraq using an unrelated event (9/11) as an excuse is simply chicken-shit. I believe in peace. If we have to choose between taking the first blow or pre-emtion, I'll take the first blow like a man, thank you very much. Acting from a place of fear is not patriotic. It's neurotic. And if we were to attack Iraq, then at least we could be honest in our reasons, not waffling like the administration did. First it was yellowcake, then terrorists, and finally to liberate the Iraqi people..Oh please! We should just hand out a multiple-choice sheet so other countries can pick their favorite answer! Bush and his chicken-hawks are scared little boys with real weapons, not patriots!

I have plenty of faith in America, and obviously one terrorist attack won't wipe out AMerica, I never said it would. And I agree somewhat with what you said, did we not come out swinging after 9/11 ???
But please spare me of your "I'll take a blow first then act, acting out of fear is neurotic" thats pure stupidity, and that mentality is wrong and evil if you are in the position to stop it (i.e. the gov't). The government's duty is to protect its citizens, should we let North Korea nuke us or give nukes to a rogue nation or terrorist group first before acting??? Get serious...


P.S. I never bought the Iraq terrorist connection, but I was still for the war. I would've supported Bush without the pre-emption case, which I'll be the first to admit is bogus, however Saddam did have weapons (don't be naive), but the weapons and Saddam were not a threat to national security.

Again Pre-emption is a necessary doctrine because it obvious that the world at large is not looking out for The U.S. We are well within our rights to protect our own BY ANY AND ALL MEANS NECESSARY!!!

Effective Criticism Made Easy

Step 1 : Dismiss the opposing argument as stupid. This is key. Of course they are unintelligent, if they had half a mind, they would see things your way. This does two things, it builds your self-esteem by reminding yourself, that you are the smartest person you know. It also gives you a fantastic reason not to listen to them. What is the point, if they are stupid? They obviously couldn't grasp your point of view, so there is no need to argue it.

Step 2 : Dismiss their actions or motives as evil. The second part of the punch/kick combo. This places you on a moral highground of which you can never be dethroned from. There is no reason to attempt to understand the opposition because to do so would put your mind in an evil place.

Follow these rules to remain forever Intelligent and forever Pure. Criticism is easy. Remember, dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.

...

Actually, quite the misunderstanding. Its a response to the original question of the thread. Is W stupid or evil? The simplest answer is to believe he is both.

Can I get fries with that? :D

My bad sir, I should've seen that.

Listen, I can't stand Bush but calling him a moron or evil is too simplistic and frankly easy. Is he a good public speaker? No, in fact he makes me want to pull my ears off when I listen to him but that does not make him a moron. I know that people are using the term "moron" to mean someone who makes poor decisions or fails to grasp large ideas, but that is not a moron. He has often been accused of having no intellectual curiosity and staunch almost bull-headed beliefs, which I feel is more accurate and certainly more irritating. People can't help it if they are dumb, but someone who is intelligent and refuses to consider alternatives is much more annoying (and in this case dangerous).

As far as evil, I truly do not believe that the President is evil, only misguided. Now Karl Rove is a whole other story, that guy is scary.


F.Y.I. - Technically you have to have an I.Q. in the range of 50-65 to qualify as moron.

I really don't think anyone should *ever* bring in SAT scores or whatever into a conversation on this.

Having a score above average of americans (say 1300 to 1000 range) is not a sign of being smart but rather IMO a sign of how stupid most americans are. I hate to say it, but theres a large number of people above 1400 that should do better and get a beter chance, but can't.

Society is as society is.

shouldn't this post have been locked like the one about liberals???? isn't this thread to cause problems??????

just a question