[Poll] Is Bush really dumb?

[Poll] Is Bush really dumb?

  • Yes, a very dumb person in control of a country

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • No, he is quite smart and his speech has no relation to his intelligence.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, but his lisp makes him sound stupid.

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • Yes. He is really dumb for a president and cannot speak properly too.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    2
The fuck does this thing have to do with friendly fire?

I'm pretty sure America needed Pakistani approval to go ahead with this strike.

Like I said, blame Musharaf who has his lips grafted to Bush's ass before anyone else.
 
Back on the subject at hand .....

How (and I don't mean this in a nasty way) do Bush's supporters explain some of his more notorious gaffes, such as the 9-minute (?) silence after he was informed off 9-11 (sitting there listening to some kids reading in a classroom), or the minute or so of silence during the debate with Kerry before the last election where he finally cam out with "the only thing consistent about my opponent's stance is that it's inconsistent", or the interview where he was asked a question relating to 9-11 by a reporter and was silent for w while before saying something like "I'm sure something will come to me soon, but at the moment I'm just drawing a blank"? PS: apologies if I've mis-quoted any of the above; I'm just going on (rusty) memory.

All of those things give the impression that he's not all there; not that he's "goofy" or "clumsy" or something like that. I mean, I'm clumsy - I have bad hand-eye coordination and can't type to save my life, but I could have made a better fist of all those situations than Bush (and, yes, I've done some public speaking so I know what stage nerves are like).
 
///M said:
The fuck does this thing have to do with friendly fire?

I'm pretty sure America needed Pakistani approval to go ahead with this strike.

Like I said, blame Musharaf who has his lips grafted to Bush's ass before anyone else.
Click to expand...

u are wrong musharaf is not the one to blame and i wont blame him.
 
So why is he indirectly defending the bombing?

The missile strike apparently targeted al-Qaeda's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was said not to have been there.

The US has not commented on the strike. Pakistan has protested, but its leader warned people not to harbour militants.

"If we kept sheltering foreign terrorists here... our future will not be good," said President Pervez Musharraf in speech broadcast on state television.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4614486.stm
 
u are wrong musharaf is not the one to blame and i wont blame him.
Click to expand...

tranceshakeel, let me guess...hmmm, uh...BUSH IS TO BLAME!! :roll: Just like America is to blame for most things, its like I said, it is the world's sport. Hopefully the UN Security Counsel or the E.U. could do something about the Iran Nuke situation so we won't have to play world police.

Anyway, regarding your comments Lurch0001,

How (and I don't mean this in a nasty way) do Bush's supporters explain some of his more notorious gaffes, such as the 9-minute (?) silence after he was informed off 9-11 (sitting there listening to some kids reading in a classroom), or the minute or so of silence during the debate with Kerry before the last election where he finally cam out with "the only thing consistent about my opponent's stance is that it's inconsistent", or the interview where he was asked a question relating to 9-11 by a reporter and was silent for w while before saying something like "I'm sure something will come to me soon, but at the moment I'm just drawing a blank"? PS: apologies if I've mis-quoted any of the above; I'm just going on (rusty) memory.
Click to expand...

You can obviously see that there is a conenction with all the above incidents you mentioned. Bush is not one to take immediate action or respond spontaneously. That is a flaw of his. It is why he just sat there for 9min, sometimes takes a while to answer questions etc etc. However, I will ask you this, what could he have done in 9min that would have saved the people being attacked on Sept 11? At that moment there was alot of chaos and little was known about multiple planes and how many were being hijacked etc. He couldn't have done much in 9min. Maybe it would have looked good, but he is not one to do things to look good for the public or base his policy on popular opinion.


Regarding Musharraf, he knows, along with the CIA, that in that border region there are supporters of Al-Queda and terrorists sympathizers. Bin Laden and others are known to hide and frequent the tribal regions there.
 
The current situation in Iran is a result of past American intervention in Iranian domestic affairs, specifically in 1953.

It is a mess the Americans created and should be theirs to bear the responsibility of cleaning up.
 
justin syder said:
Maybe it would have looked good, but he is not one to do things to look good for the public or base his policy on popular opinion.
Click to expand...

I agreee that he couldn't have done much in the 9 minutes immediately after he was told, but to just sit there (even if he was thinking long and hard about it) wasn't good for appearances.

I also take issue with you saying that he doesn't do things to "look good"; of course he does, he's a politician, they all do that. Politicians are elected on the basis of their popularity, so suggesting they don't base policies on factors that make the public happy is a bit far-fetched. In fact, Bush seems to be more hasty in his actions than many politicians - this is the guy who, remember, grabbed an ear of raw corn and started chewing on it. Should he not have checked that it was coocked first?
 
:lol:

Wait a minute, you say,

I agreee that he couldn't have done much in the 9 minutes immediately after he was told, but to just sit there (even if he was thinking long and hard about it) wasn't good for appearances.
Click to expand...

then you say,

I also take issue with you saying that he doesn't do things to "look good"; of course he does, he's a politician, they all do that.
Click to expand...

So on Sept 11 he didn't look good but every other time he does things like a politician and looks good? No.

A good example to show you what I mean. Bush's policy isn't popular around the world, most disagree with it. Bill Clinton however was liked by more people. He did things to appeal to everyone, going after Bin Laden is not something he would have done. That is why he sent some cruise missles and called it a day. Going to Afghanistan and Iraq is something Bill Clinton wouldn't have done but Bush has done. See what I mean? Bill Clinton's policy was almost always based on job approval rating and popular opinion. Bush does what he wants to do regardless of job approval rating and he is a man of his word. He does what he says and says what he means.

I saw somewhere on tv that Bill Clinton made a speech regarding the first attack on the WTC. He said that he vowed to get those responsible but all he did was send some cruise missles. After ppl forgot about the first attack, after time has passed everything was just fine for Bill Clinton. He didn't suffer any critism for that. He did what was popular. Bush vowed to get the culprits of Sept 11 and has followed through, it is unpopular to wage a war but he did what he thought was right, not what he thought would appeal to the American public and the rest of the world.
 
justin syder said:
:lol:

Wait a minute, you say,

I agreee that he couldn't have done much in the 9 minutes immediately after he was told, but to just sit there (even if he was thinking long and hard about it) wasn't good for appearances.
Click to expand...

then you say,

I also take issue with you saying that he doesn't do things to "look good"; of course he does, he's a politician, they all do that.
Click to expand...

So on Sept 11 he didn't look good but every other time he does things like a politician and looks good? No.
Click to expand...

No, you need to take your rose(bush)-coloured glasses off. I mean he *tries* to do things to look good, to appeal to the people. But on the occasions I mentioned previously, he failed. Why? Because his actions, or lack of them, created the perception that he didn't know what to do. And perception is extremely important for politicians - they are elected on the basis of the public's perception that they will do a goob job over the next term.

justin syder said:
A good example to show you what I mean. Bush's policy isn't popular around the world, most disagree with it. Bill Clinton however was liked by more people. He did things to appeal to everyone, going after Bin Laden is not something he would have done. That is why he sent some cruise missles and called it a day. Going to Afghanistan and Iraq is something Bill Clinton wouldn't have done but Bush has done. See what I mean? Bill Clinton's policy was almost always based on job approval rating and popular opinion. Bush does what he wants to do regardless of job approval rating and he is a man of his word. He does what he says and says what he means.
Click to expand...

But he's the democratically elected leader of the United States - in a democracy, the leader isn't in place to do what he wants (or says). A true democratic leader is a representative of the people's will, and should not disregard his job approval rating - that's the very indicator of how well he is representing the people's will.
 
I think Bush is a very well educated man. He graduated from Yale and went to graduate school at Harvard. He is also a very sucessful businessman who knows how to run a large corporation. He is more than qualified in this field.

However, I don't think he has the qualities to be the "leader of the free world." He should have just stayed Texas governor.

He's just a very simple minded and backwards thinking redneck from Texas. The American republican rhetoric really doesn't work in the rest of the world. They tend to follow the "Little Red Republican Book" than their own common sense.

Bush appealed to the average voter because he seemed "real" to them. In other words, Bush seemed to be vulnerable and fallable just like the average American. That was reassuring to people who thought Gore was a stone-faced robot or Kerry just didn't look like a President.

You'd be amazed (er . . . appalled) at how most American voters choose their candidate.
 
Lusitano said:
Of course he is as dumb as Texas Longhorns' dung!

He is not the one running the show! It is pretty obvious! He is just the face of the monster. This monster had a Dick as his heart, if you know what I mean!
Click to expand...

Texas Longhorn dung is quite intelligent. The University of Texas is a difficult school to get into. Their MBA program is rated in the top 10 so I would watch the Texas bashing.
 
HuevosRancheros said:
Lusitano said:
Of course he is as dumb as Texas Longhorns' dung!

He is not the one running the show! It is pretty obvious! He is just the face of the monster. This monster had a Dick as his heart, if you know what I mean!
Click to expand...

Texas Longhorn dung is quite intelligent. The University of Texas is a difficult school to get into. Their MBA program is rated in the top 10 so I would watch the Texas bashing.
Click to expand...
Just as a side note: The Financial Times ranks the University of Texas at place 62 for their MBA ;) But I am sure you can come up with a ranking in which they hit the Top 10. :roll: Here is the ranking
 
I thaught that you meant the US, but in none of the rankings they quote, for the MBA or the EMBA, they are within the Top 10. Or I am just not seeing it....
 
Alright...I'll admit it. Bush is probably smarter than President Logan from "24"
 
Logan is such a joke, god save us if we ever get a dumbass like that.

I'm actually looking forward to the next election, I have a favorite possible candidate that I would be excited to see in office. Yay for not choosing the lesser of two evils!
 
Spill it.

and if it's Hillary, i'm gonna slit my wrists.... :thumbsdown: :p
 
Well, the WORST election I can think of right now is Hillary Clinton vs. Dick Cheney, so no it's not her. If that shit happens I may consider taking a 4 to 8 year "vacation".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top