StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This guy is so fullof shit.

1. Harken energy deal, hypocrisy in DC was one of the things you were going to get rid wasn't it GW
2. Dept. of Homeland Security, if you really wanted to help secure this country you shouldn't have passed that huge tax cut which would have left lots of cash to safeguard our country
3. Entire Bush family, dirty rotten scoundrels GWB, GHWB, JB, every last one of them.


i am definitly no voting for him or his party in Nov.

Mr. B wrote:This guy is so fullof shit.

1. Harken energy deal, hypocrisy in DC was one of the things you were going to get rid wasn't it GW
2. Dept. of Homeland Security, if you really wanted to help secure this country you shouldn't have passed that huge tax cut which would have left lots of cash to safeguard our country
3. Entire Bush family, dirty rotten scoundrels GWB, GHWB, JB, every last one of them.


i am definitly no voting for him or his party in Nov.

Agreed.

Ugh; I had actually votedfor the man last time around, thinking better him than Gore. I'm not repeating that mistake. Better a fool than a fool surrounded by control freaks. I can't fault him for his speech style or hypocrisy, as he strikes me as being relatively guileless for a president (a bit like Grant, perhaps?). It's his warmongering cabinet that scares me (actually, Ashcroft alone does that). Having someone who panders to the religious right in a critical position, much less one in charge of maintaining civil rights and liberties, isn't a very good idea at all. Unfortunately, it's a reality of politics.

He is doing an adiquate job. he could be doing better, but he could be doing far worse. Overall, it's an improvement over the Clinton.

Things Bush has done right:

1. Regime change policy in Iraq. The most important voice in this issue is the voice of the Iraqi people. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi expatriots and hundreds of thousands of dissidents are unanimous in their desire to see US intervention. They can't do it themselves; they've tried. And we made a promise to help them. I don't see anyone else (except, perhaps for Lieberman) with the guts to follow through on that solemn obligation. My only worries are whether unnecessary force will be used, and what will be done to promote democracy afterward. But I won't start criticizing the President for things he hasn't done yet.

2. Wooing Russia. This was some excellent diplomacy, despite Bush's artless apperance at times. The outdated, useless ABM treaty was discarded and replaced with the most sweeping arms reduction treaty in history. It wasn't even valid anymore, anyway. Now we can work on developing the technology to make ICBMs obsolete, or if that proves impossible, at least find out that it's impossible. We don't know if we can do it, but not trying would just be inexcusable. Funny how the country least concerned about this new policy is Russia itself.

3. Afghanistan. Civilian casualties are, of course, tragic, and people should be held accountable if negligence occurred. But at least now the people can choose their leaders, roads, water treatment plants, hospitals, and power plants can get built, families can get food aid, women can get healthcare, and children can get an education, maybe.

4. Resisting insane treaties. Kyoto is bass-ackward, and I don't trust any international criminal court with no jury trials, lax rules about the introduction of evidence, poorly defined limits on its authority, and controlled by a bunch of corrupt international institutions prejudiced against the US and motivated by politics before justice. Some day it'll be a very good idea (as will be world government), but a lot of things need to improve in the world before I'll trust it farther than I can throw it.

5. New policy in the Middle East conflict. Nothing is to be gained by dealing with Arafat. The man has called the Oslo accords an "inferior peace." (Translation: the peace process is only to be pursued so long as Israel continues making more and more concessions that will better facilitate its eventual destruction, while the Palestinians have to make none of their own. After negotiations have been milked for all they're worth and the Israelis have given up everything, resort to violence to finish the job.) The only new idea he proposed at Camp David was that the Temple Mount "doesn't exist." The Palestinians are free to re-elect him, but we are free to say whether we will deal with him. The Palestinians do, however, deserve a decent administration, free media, and eventual freedom from Israeli settlements. Once they abandon terror, they should get a full Israeli withdraw, a state on basically the 1967 borders, and as much international aid as they need. Bush outlined the steps for achieving all of this, and our officials are working with the Palestinians to help them institute the social reforms basic to any further progress toward peace.

6. Ending American funding of groups that perform abortions in third-world countries as a method of population control. IIRC, this was one of his first executive orders. Clinton and Gore supported this horrific policy. I strongly support population control initiatives, but not ones that use murder as their method.

7. Pakistan. The ultimate in carrot and stick diplomacy. Musharraf needs American support if he's to acquire any legitimacy whatsoever or get any foreign investment to speak of. We'll only provide that as long as he fights terror and cleans the fanatic Islamists out of his government. And he's produced results, albeit with some reluctance. Hopefully, if the trend continues, we can get him to work on liberalizing his country and holding free elections one of these days.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Things Bush has done wrong:

1. Bush seems to lack faith in the judicial system. American citizens should be tried in American courts if they have committed crimes against this country, and their constitutional rights should be protected. This is a slippery slope. I can understand the impulse to stick Padilla in front of a military tribunal, but that would be dangerous and unnecessary. "Sensitive" information that would become public in the event of a criminal trial isn't a good enough reason. A society that will trade a little liberty for a little safety will lose both, and deserve neither.

2. The above point is evidence of a larger paranoia Bush seems to have about the philosophy of open government. It's one thing to keep vital information of military importance a secret, but quite another to do the same with other kinds of information fo purely political reasons. That's very, very dangerous and fundamentally un-American. Bush hasn't exactly been forthcoming about Cheyney's involvement with utility deregulation or his own administration's refusal to investigate what was going on while it was still going on. The Pentagon breifings we get are a joke, and journalists should also be permitted to travel with our troops on missions and document what they see fit to document. Walter Cronkite is right. In general, Bush needs to be more frank about the specific aims and aspects of his policies.

3. Homeland Security Dept. Would undermine all the other functions of all the agencies that would become part of it.

4. Trade policy. There has to be a better way to manage agriculture than farm subsidies. No one seems to be trying (although, to be fair, other countries have the same problem). Steel tariffs. I'm more upset about the motivation behind these and the way in which they were issued than the fact of their existance. It might be a good thing if the whole steel producing world were to put up temporary tariffs on imported steel. The industry would have no choice but to shrink to conform to demand and operate efficiently. That's exactly what it needs to do. But that's not why Bush issued them. He didn't consult anyone about it, and he did it just to get votes. Members of Congress have criticized him for it IIRC, as has Alan Greenspan. I'm not convinced most Americans support these things. I just hope the final result will be meaningful reform that helps free trade. If that happens, some of the criticism we're receiving should diminish.

5. Environmental rollbacks. Where the notion came from that conservatives aren't supposed to be environmentalists I don't know, but it's completely wrong. I'm both a conservative and an environmentalist. Within reason.

------------------------------------------------------

I'll vote for someone besides Bush if I think he'd do the things I need a president to do for me right now and that Bush seems to be doing. But if the choice is between Bush and someone like Gore, I'll still vote for Bush.

Right now he's doing a good job, and he's the best choice I have been presented thus far.

Overall, it's an improvement over the Clinton

This is like saying Hanging is Better than a Firing Squad


A Monkey in a Hamster wheel could be as good a President as Bush
And twice the Preisdent Clinton was

Bush if I remeber correctly from the TIME articule has a 97 IQ he made it through Yale by bob knows what(*cough daddies money) and yes Bush Senior did donate a large check to the Collage right before he was accepted

If Bush ever does a good job it means we have a smart guy pulling his Stings, At least Gore had half a mind to do things on his own, Bush however is nothing but a puppet, He desrves no praise nor no riddcual(Except that which comes along with being a puppet, This the Monkey on Hamster wheel comprarison)

Bush is nothing more than a puppet of the Republican Party. If the Republicans wanted a real leader who would put priority of the nation first, and serve the people above special interest, they would've nominated McCain. They obviously didn't even though he is ten times the man Bush could ever hope to be. The Republicans and those who financially support the party wanted someone they could control. They correctly picked Bush.

Mr Bean wrote:

Bush if I remeber correctly from the TIME articule has a 97 IQ he made it through Yale by bob knows what(*cough daddies money) and yes Bush Senior did donate a large check to the Collage right before he was accepted

Yes, and that TIME article, and the paper it was based on, have been proven to be invalid. Bush's IQ hasn't been officialy tested and released to the public at large. The article was based on a "research" paper who's basic foundation was faulty.

Still He's not done anything to prove he has better than a 97 IQ

Well, Bush has a 1206 SAT and was a C student at Yale.

However, I don't like him even more for the reason that he actually harmed someone I know. How?

I am in a summer program at Yale University. Barbara Bush is coming around for a stay in our dorm (Davenport). Therefore, four girls from our program got kicked out of their suite and sent to some god-knows-where place to stay for the duration of the progam.

+1 post.

This was taken off of urbanlegends.com. The report of his low intelligence is in Yellow, and the editors comments in red.

Report: President Bush Has Lowest IQ of All Presidents of Past 50 Years

If late night TV comedy is an indicator, then there has never been as widespread a perception that a president is not intellectually qualified for the position he holds as there is with President GW Bush.

In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four-month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush.

Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.

According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155.

President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.

No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176.

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G. W. Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, so in many ways that made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We had to rely more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."

The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, think-tank includes high-caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist.

This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001, and released on July 9, 2001, to subscribing member universities and organizations within the education community.



Comments: You'd think Americans would have grown weary of "Bush is an idiot" jokes by now, but the popularity of this forwarded email suggests otherwise.

It's obviously satire, though in a few cases it has been posted around the Net as factual and, strange as it seems, hotly debated.

We have found no evidence of a "Lovenstein Institute" in Scranton, Pennsylvania or anywhere else. There's no trace of a "Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist" or "Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, world-respected psychiatrist" — not in this world, at any rate. All of the facts and figures appear to have been made up. Some versions of the text claim it was published by the Associated Press, which is not the case.

It can be found at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bliq-bush.htm

Fun for the whole family eh David?


*Note to self force indruction to make All Presidents Acutal IQ public, They don't have any other privacy why this little bit

I just can't stand Bush. Clinton, despite his shortcomings, had charisma, and he spoke like a leader, and he was respected internationally. He's just someone that I'd like to meet and talk to. Bush doesn't hold that appeal.

I can't believe that the President of the United States actually waved to Stevie Wonder when he met him. I can't believe that the president actually revels in putting people to death. I can't believe that he treats the French president to a ho-down on the ranch when he comes to visit. The way he speaks, his posture and inability to answer questions without a pad response makes me ashamed to call him the president.

He gives speeches while leaning on one arm with a cock-eyed look on his face similar to a deer in the headlights. He just looks clueless, and he's a joke to 50% of the people in this nation, and to virtually all the other nations of the world that currently aren't being bombed by the US military. He simply has no charisma, and he epitomizes everything that everyone hates about Americans.

But, Bush is just a figurehead. The real problem lies in Bush's administration. He's got no power. Cheney and all his buddies are the ones with the actual power. Cheney, who sounds smug like a used-car salesman, and for some reason, is never anywhere to be found, ever. Bush appointed John Ashcroft, a man who lost to a dead guy in the Missouri governor's election, to be Attorney General, and he's widely known as a fascist, dictatorial asshole, and his proposed TIPS programs and actions post-September 11th have done nothing but amplify the image that the Bush administration considers civil rights expendable, but then again, that's how a fascist government works.

So, yes, Bush is an idiot. The jokes would have gotten old long ago if he had stopped his steady supply of material to the press.

Durandal wrote:I can't believe that he treats the French president to a ho-down on the ranch when he comes to visit.

Now wait just a darn minute. I won't argue with the rest of your post, but if ho-downs are good enough for Aaron Copland, Agnes de Mille, and the Ballet russe de Monte Carlo, they ought to be good enough for the freaking French.

Yeah, stinking frenchies.

I simply dislike ho-downs and hee-haws or whatever the fuck they're called. Why didn't he just let him ride a fucking bull in a rodeo?

Then again, it is the French.

It's not like they have to be the drunken indulgences of self-humiliation they're frequently portrayed as. Sometimes they actually involve impressive dexterity, skilled footwork, and tasteful music. They're no more uncouth than clog dancing, polka, or any other European-inspired form. In fact, they're arguably the most distinctly American contribution to the performing arts in the past 200 years (Brittney Spears and N'Sink most assuredly do not quality.) Go see Rodeo (not RO-de-oh, but Ro-DAY-oh) at a theater (not THEE-ater, but THEA-ter) sometime. Aaron Copland was the greatest American composer ever. Not even John Williams can compete with him.

I neither like nor trust Bush and his administration. He hasn't screwed things up too badly yet, though.

Kinda +1

Howedar wrote: He hasn't screwed things up too badly yet, though.

Kinda +1

Whenever he talks about the economy the stock mrkt goes down. The nation has NO confidence in the man and his administration. His cronies are all dirty businessmen and women that should be taken away in cuffs. And he fucked up in the war on terror, after losing bin Laden he deciided to go after a much easier target, poor evil Saddam Hussein.

I hope the secret service doesn't come after me for suggesting we shoot the fascist.

Eh. I did vote for the man, only under duress (the alternative to an idiot was a spineless, wishy-washy idiot). Not exactly thrilled by his administration, but not surprised either. Just about everything he's done that I disagree with can be traced directly to his Christian background (damned Religious Right... gives the rest of us a bad name).

In any case, I'm not too terribly concerned about his presidency. Most people forget that all the bonehead stuff he does will be wiped clean the instant another man is elected into office. Hell, look how quickly Clinton's work was swept under the carpet.

Bush managed to break our beholdenship to outside sources, which I agree with (I'm a strict isolationist), he hasn't been pussyfooting around with conflicts (if Gore were in office, he'd have asked the American people to send hugs to Osama bin Laden), and I've yet to see him try to "overturn" Roe vs. Wade (which was the biggest fear before he got elected).

A great president? Not by any means. The worst president in history? Only if you're fanatically liberal.

Oh, yeah, I do miss Clinton. I disagree with a lot of his politics, and he was a bit of an ass, but damn, he was funny. We should appoint Clinton to the office of "Public Figure For Life", just so we never miss out on his "appearances" on Conan O'Brien.

For good presidential news go here: http://www.whitehouse.org/

Whenever he talks about the economy the stock mrkt goes down. The nation has NO confidence in the man and his administration. His cronies are all dirty businessmen and women that should be taken away in cuffs. And he fucked up in the war on terror, after losing bin Laden he deciided to go after a much easier target, poor evil Saddam Hussein.

I hope the secret service doesn't come after me for suggesting we shoot the fascist.

agreed, He gives away a tax cut to the richest 1% of the population as the economy is in a recession, even as as he increased military spending and he has not even tried to put any actual reforms that hold those scamming overpaid CEO's for their damm crimes.

yeah a real good idea, decrease income and increase spending.