[RoseClown]

I'm sorry if I came across as saying Bush was dumb, as I said he had average intelligence. Which is roughly from the 115-125 range. So with ten marks higher than that he is classified as 'above average' officialy. Besides SAT's don't tell the whole story, since there are the many different types of intelligences and I don't know where Bush ranks on these, so I can't really make much more of a comment. And the intelligence range Buch is in is in the same range as my sister, who seems ditzy but can work the room like no ones business and has a good heart. She is smarter than me in a lot of ways, so when I was commenting on intelligence I did not so much mean that to be offensive as it might have sounded, since I realize a lot of people call bush dumb and that is just plain wrong.

Personally I think Bush got a crummy term and was not prepared to deal with it. Obama might be the same, but at least he knows what he is getting into. (Not that not knowing was Bush's fault, it's just that Obama will be more prepared, if it's possible to be prepared for such a thing.) I have sympathy for Bush, but I do not feel (nor can I be convinced) that he was the best person for the job in those years (then again no-one really stepped up). In other years he might have been good, he just drew the short end of the stick. And I am not saying a person of average intelligence can't make a GOOD president, but it takes a certain kind of smarts to make a GREAT president. Whether it be politcal, moral, or many other kinds.

The thing is I am trying to look at Bush's term now as a historian might in the future, minus the emotional bias (as much as possible, that is. I am not a robot after all lol). I can't look the same way at Obama because he has not been president yet, so I remain optimistic and hopeful. In four years you might hear me saying a different tune.

Quote:

But intentionally whipping up foreign opinion against our nation for domestic political gain is way out of line. Knock it off.

Okay, If I did this I am sorry. Could you point out what sentence? I am geniunly confused here. I never whipped up foreign opinion AGAINST our nation. If you mistook me comparing the charisma of Hitler vs Obama, what I was saying was during the speech he COULD have made it a frenzy, but he didn't. Hitler and other people did. That shows moral character and that Obama won't misuse the Charisma. If anything I am proud to be an American and was defending the choice the American people made. If it is something else I said please point it out, because I think I may be missing something. Or is it the Bush thing? One comment does not whipping up negativeity make. I have tried to remain upbeat, but obviously I have failed.

Also, as you feel these subjects should be left behind our border, then If you wish to discuss with me more on personal politics feel free to PM me. Though I feel politics should be discussed openly across country lines, as we have a lot to learn from everyone and vice-versa, I recognize that beign purposefully divisive is not a good thing. It was never my intent to do so, and I don't think it is yours either.

[GenghisCod]

Quote:

I said he had average intelligence. Which is roughly from the 115-125 range.

I am sorry, but people are always confused about what average intellegence is. It is not 115-125 or whatever. The IQ system is was created as a normal distribution with 100 being average. If your IQ is less than 100, you are of less than average intelligence. If your IQ is greater than 100, you are of above average intelligence.

[Canadian_Mind]

I scored 145 then 156 5 years later, yet I failed english 10 (honours class too), and otherwise barely made my way through highschool. IQ isn't everything either.

Although perpetual laziness must be accounted for aswell.

[CommanderSock]

Quote:

I'm sorry if I came across as saying Bush was dumb, as I said he had average intelligence. Which is roughly from the 115-125 range. So with ten marks higher than that he is classified as 'above average' officialy. Besides SAT's don't tell the whole story, since there are the many different types of intelligences and I don't know where Bush ranks on these, so I can't really make much more of a comment. And the intelligence range Buch is in is in the same range as my sister, who seems ditzy but can work the room like no ones business and has a good heart. She is smarter than me in a lot of ways, so when I was commenting on intelligence I did not so much mean that to be offensive as it might have sounded, since I realize a lot of people call bush dumb and that is just plain wrong.

Personally I think Bush got a crummy term and was not prepared to deal with it. Obama might be the same, but at least he knows what he is getting into. (Not that not knowing was Bush's fault, it's just that Obama will be more prepared, if it's possible to be prepared for such a thing.) I have sympathy for Bush, but I do not feel (nor can I be convinced) that he was the best person for the job in those years (then again no-one really stepped up). In other years he might have been good, he just drew the short end of the stick. And I am not saying a person of average intelligence can't make a GOOD president, but it takes a certain kind of smarts to make a GREAT president. Whether it be politcal, moral, or many other kinds.

The thing is I am trying to look at Bush's term now as a historian might in the future, minus the emotional bias (as much as possible, that is. I am not a robot after all lol). I can't look the same way at Obama because he has not been president yet, so I remain optimistic and hopeful. In four years you might hear me saying a different tune.

Quote:
But intentionally whipping up foreign opinion against our nation for domestic political gain is way out of line. Knock it off.


Okay, If I did this I am sorry. Could you point out what sentence? I am geniunly confused here. I never whipped up foreign opinion AGAINST our nation. If you mistook me comparing the charisma of Hitler vs Obama, what I was saying was during the speech he COULD have made it a frenzy, but he didn't. Hitler and other people did. That shows moral character and that Obama won't misuse the Charisma. If anything I am proud to be an American and was defending the choice the American people made. If it is something else I said please point it out, because I think I may be missing something. Or is it the Bush thing? One comment does not whipping up negativeity make. I have tried to remain upbeat, but obviously I have failed.

Also, as you feel these subjects should be left behind our border, then If you wish to discuss with me more on personal politics feel free to PM me. Though I feel politics should be discussed openly across country lines, as we have a lot to learn from everyone and vice-versa, I recognize that beign purposefully divisive is not a good thing. It was never my intent to do so, and I don't think it is yours either.

Bush made terrible errors. HIs approval rating after 9/11 was the highest of any US president. People were saying "thank god we dodged the bullet by picking him over Gore".

Bush had the opportunity to go down in history as one of the greats. He had his chance, and he fucked it up.

All you have to do is look at his legislative record. Wiki it, or look it up on some political websites. It is abysmal the sort of crap he put through. Eventually he dug himself a hole, and the last two years of his presidency, he has been a lame duck.

Constantly throughout his tenure he pushed through the right wing agenda. Never reaching to the middle, always his way or no way. The stem-cell veto was the grand daddy of all stupidity. The whole fiasco with the pope, disgusting!

[RoseClown]

Eh, well it seems whatever side I try and see it from I get burned. Well, cest la vie. Such is being a moderate. I agree that Bush seriously messed up some issues, (patriot act and No child left behind) but I think I will back out of this weeks discussion now. lol. Oh, and I like the term Lame Duck. Total awesomesauce. Anyway that reply was mostly to Noufie who seemed fit to chide me. And Noufie, now that I have had time to think, next time do you think you could put in a nicer way to correct me than 'Knock it off'? I mean, I am an adult with full voting rights and ability to liv on my own, so I think we should treat eachother with mutual respect.

P.S. Oh, you know, I really should have remembered that it is 100 and from there since I took psychology just last year. Whoops. My bad. At least I said that scores aren't everything and that there are many kinds of intelligence. >.< And here I am supposed to be 161 on the IQ test... then again that's why I am in history and creative writing.

[CommanderSock]

RoseClown wrote:

Eh, well it seems whatever side I try and see it from I get burned. Well, cest la vie. Such is being a moderate. I agree that Bush seriously messed up some issues, (patriot act and No child left behind) but I think I will back out of this weeks discussion now. lol. Oh, and I like the term Lame Duck. Total awesomesauce. Anyway that reply was mostly to Noufie who seemed fit to chide me. And Noufie, now that I have had time to think, next time do you think you could put in a nicer way to correct me than 'Knock it off'? I mean, I am an adult with full voting rights and ability to liv on my own, so I think we should treat eachother with mutual respect.

P.S. Oh, you know, I really should have remembered that it is 100 and from there since I took psychology just last year. Whoops. My bad. At least I said that scores aren't everything and that there are many kinds of intelligence. >.< And here I am supposed to be 161 on the IQ test... then again that's why I am in history and creative writing.

In no way did I mean any offense. I am a moderate too, (fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but not the extreme of either).

I just think the whole Bush Administration (apart from Karl Rove) is beyond defense.

Karl is a different story.

[Psudo]

GenghisCod wrote:

Quote:

I said he had average intelligence. Which is roughly from the 115-125 range.

I am sorry, but people are always confused about what average intellegence is. It is not 115-125 or whatever. The IQ system is was created as a normal distribution with 100 being average. If your IQ is less than 100, you are of less than average intelligence. If your IQ is greater than 100, you are of above average intelligence.

GenghisCod is describing the ranking system of intelligence testing as it is today. Originally, IQ testing was intended to compare intelligences of individuals objectively. Over the hundred-year history of the test average scores have gone up, and the testing has become more strict to counteract that. Thus, a IQ measured at 120 in the first half of the 20th century would be about the 100 point average of today.

Measuring abstract things like intelligence is never so precise. Scores may differ from 100 to 120 merely based on an individual's mood or focus at the moment. So it's rather nonsensical to argue over where 'average' precisely is.

CommanderSock wrote:

All you have to do is look at his [Bush's] legislative record.

Yes, our national executive sure has a lousy legislative record.

[CanadianJeff]

Frankly I just hope that no matter what happens the US starts to pull itself out of the hole it's dug in both world affairs and the economy to come out with a bright future. That and may Bush rot in hell for all the wrong he's done the country.

If he had any kind of honor or hope for the American people he would never have ran in 2004.

[Firekite]

RoseClown wrote:

Obama won because he did bring a level of hope.

He won because his media campaign was more slick, his meaningless buzzwords were catchy, and because he said a lot of empty things people wanted to hear--and he did so more eloquently than not. He promised the world on a stick, and all the sugar-buzzed county fair attendees stood in line to buy some of that from him, and not a few specifically because his dad knocked up a white girl before leaving them both. I guess that's something to relate to. I'm pretty sure that November 4, 2008, was christened Black Christmas, by the way the crowds were reacting. The "hope" people speak of is a farce, which is unfortunate on lots of different levels.

Quote:

My highest expectations is that he will be another FDR or Theodore Roosevelt, both great reformers who did bring the keyword, 'Change.'

I don't even know where to begin dissecting the things wrong with every part of that sentence. From which of Obama's "political contributors" on TV do you get your talking points?

CanadianJeff wrote:

Frankly I just hope that no matter what happens the US starts to pull itself out of the hole it's dug in both world affairs and the economy to come out with a bright future. That and may Bush rot in hell for all the wrong he's done the country.

Just out of curiosity, not being a Bush fan myself, what specifically do you believe he did to cause the current economic downturn, what should he have done differently, and what else do you believe is "all the wrong he's done the country" that would qualify him to "rot in hell"?

[Kjorteo]

Firekite wrote:

Just out of curiosity, not being a Bush fan myself, what specifically do you believe he did to cause the current economic downturn, what should he have done differently, and what else do you believe is "all the wrong he's done the country" that would qualify him to "rot in hell"?

I'm not enough of an economic expert to say what part, if any, of the financial crisis is Bush's fault. My own admittedly incredibly uneducated layman's opinion is that the boatloads we're spending in Iraq probably aren't helping, but I couldn't begin to back that up if challenged.

As far as what else he did wrong, though, there's only the most blatant disregard for civil liberties and Constitutional protections since Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus (which Bush pretty much did too with the military tribunals and such, though he wasn't quite as formal about announcing it.) The USA-PATRIOT act, the NSA warrantless wiretapping scandal, extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib....

Also, we're firmly in "too late now" territory with regard to Iraq, in that we can't really just teleport out of there now, but that certainly wasn't true when Bush made the decision to invade in the first place. Say what you will about how to best resolve the situation now, but for the purposes of answering the question of what Bush ever did wrong, that situation certainly never should have happened in the first place.

Internationally, our reputation has gone from "shining beacon on a hill" to "egomaniacal bully" largely because of the Bush doctrine of preemptive invasion and the highly questionable treatment of "enemy combatants." That is a definite, concrete example of something Bush has done wrong and that the image of hope and optimism Obama projects (along with a reversal of the actual policies once he's in office, with any luck) should hopefully fix.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo, are you criticizing Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus? If you were to, I think you'd be unintentionally giving Bush a compliment. People reading that would think "The people who criticize Bush's tactics also criticize Lincoln's, and Lincoln was a good President in both skill and morality. Maybe Bush is closer to that standard than I previously thought."

[Kjorteo]

I'm criticizing Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, but I don't see the correlation between that and justifying Bush's policies. No President has ever been nor ever will be 100% perfect in everything they do or make the right call in every single situation, nor has any President ever been or ever will be 100% evil or make the absolute opposite of the right call in every single situation. Lincoln was a fantastic President both in skill and in character who did a great many wonderful things. Suspending Habeas Corpus was not one of them. And Bush isn't magically a good President for doing questionable things just because an (otherwise) good President also did them.

[thealmightynarf]

Psudo wrote:

Kjorteo, are you criticizing Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus? If you were to, I think you'd be unintentionally giving Bush a compliment. People reading that would think "The people who criticize Bush's tactics also criticize Lincoln's, and Lincoln was a good President in both skill and morality. Maybe Bush is closer to that standard than I previously thought."

I think there are a lot of parallels between Bush and Lincoln. Keep in mind that in his own time he was so hated and vilified that the country split in half simply because he was elected. But, history remembers him much more fondly now... and I think history will Bush much more fondly too.

Not that I think Bush will ever be considered a great president. But, I do think Lincoln's life tends to be a bit white washed by most people.

[sandorski]

I don't care what Bush's IQ is, he's an Idiot. Somewhere between his Brain and his Actions he fucks things up and leaves messes for others to clean up. It's the story of his Life.

[CommanderSock]

Bush is a fool and an ideologue. His constant propagation of right wing policies has back fired on him.

Republican party is now catering more to wing nuts and evangelicals than the common centre and fiscal conservatives.

Barry Goldwater warned against letting the freaks in the party.