Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 18

 

Poll

Is Bush an Idiot?

Yes69%69% - 377
No30%30% - 166
Total: 543
2006-08-23 01:53:27
tahadar
Sniper!!
+183|7044|Pakistan/England

comet241 wrote:

again, thank you for proving that you do indeed care about the president of the united states of america
laughing about an idiot doesnt show that i care about him..proving an idiot is indeed an idiot doesnt mean i give a damn about him.

comet241 wrote:

what? he's already been re-elected?

well then, i suppose the people have spoken.
well then, congrats i guess. the worlds most powerful nation voted for a man accepted worldwide as an idiot! good job

Last edited by tahadar (2006-08-23 02:03:21)

2006-08-23 03:20:06
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861
https://uruknet.info/uruknet-images/bush_idiot.jpg
2006-08-23 04:44:54
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7135
Everyone seems to be in agreement that Bush is a bad public speaker. Does anyone know if hes that bad on the phone, for example, while trying to sort out internation crices with other world leaders? Kind of an important role.
2006-08-23 04:45:40
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7063|Argentina

comet241 wrote:

again, thank you for proving that you do indeed care about the president of the united states of america. I got an idea: move here, gain citizenship, throw your vote in with several hundred million others and hope you can vote him out of office next time.

what? he's already been re-elected?

well then, i suppose the people have spoken.
What for?  They arranged both elections anyway.
2006-08-23 07:17:52
Dersmikner
Member
+147|6804|Texas
Hmmm... well that transcript, assuming it's correct, is counter to what I've heard, but printed proof would be printed proof.

Do we know whether or not that was a curved grading system? I once got a 64 on a biology class midterm at UT, and it was good for the 8th highest grade in a class of 200+.

Even assuming that is correct, an assumption to which I'm loathe to agree, he graduated from Yale. He certainly would then have to have had enough of a GRE score to be admitted to Harvard B School with average Yale grades.

He then graduated from Harvard with an MBA.

Either (1) that alleged transcript is false, (2) it is correct and things were graded on a curve and my understanding that he was an honors student is still correct, or (3) there was no curve to the grades, he got Bs and Cs, and still graduated from Yale and went forward and graduated from Harvard MBA.

As an aside, I would bet that most of you who feel that Bush is indeed an idiot were supporters of Gore, and my understanding is that Gore's grades were worse than Bush's. Does that make Gore an idiot as well?

I'll need to do a little more research.

By the way, when I lived on President Bush's street in Preston Hollow you'd occasionally see Laura Bush jogging, and believe it or not, back in the early 90s when she was in shorts, a jog bra, and a cut off t-shirt she was HOT.
2006-08-23 07:27:23
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7063|Argentina

Dersmikner wrote:

Hmmm... well that transcript, assuming it's correct, is counter to what I've heard, but printed proof would be printed proof.

Do we know whether or not that was a curved grading system? I once got a 64 on a biology class midterm at UT, and it was good for the 8th highest grade in a class of 200+.

Even assuming that is correct, an assumption to which I'm loathe to agree, he graduated from Yale. He certainly would then have to have had enough of a GRE score to be admitted to Harvard B School with average Yale grades.

He then graduated from Harvard with an MBA.

Either (1) that alleged transcript is false, (2) it is correct and things were graded on a curve and my understanding that he was an honors student is still correct, or (3) there was no curve to the grades, he got Bs and Cs, and still graduated from Yale and went forward and graduated from Harvard MBA.

As an aside, I would bet that most of you who feel that Bush is indeed an idiot were supporters of Gore, and my understanding is that Gore's grades were worse than Bush's. Does that make Gore an idiot as well?

I'll need to do a little more research.

By the way, when I lived on President Bush's street in Preston Hollow you'd occasionally see Laura Bush jogging, and believe it or not, back in the early 90s when she was in shorts, a jog bra, and a cut off t-shirt she was HOT.
First, I don't think the grades of a person tell you if he's smart or not.  Then, Bush Sr. might be involved in Jr.'s performance at Yale or Harvard.

About Gore, I don't know how he did at college, but he can put in his resumee being Clinton's vicepresident for 8 years and winning an election to president Bush.  So, if Florida would know about maths Gore'd be still president.

About Laura Bush, man you have to get some porn.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-08-23 07:28:03)

2006-08-23 07:32:06
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

An idiot would believe one man made up the US Presidency.

The elected leader of the free world is an idiot?... Given America's current position in the world what does that make the other nations?

Oh wait I have the answer..pissed

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-23 07:32:21)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-23 08:25:10
comet241
Member
+164|7070|Normal, IL

tahadar wrote:

comet241 wrote:

again, thank you for proving that you do indeed care about the president of the united states of america
laughing about an idiot doesnt show that i care about him..proving an idiot is indeed an idiot doesnt mean i give a damn about him.

comet241 wrote:

what? he's already been re-elected?

well then, i suppose the people have spoken.
well then, congrats i guess. the worlds most powerful nation voted for a man accepted worldwide as an idiot! good job
when will you realize that this isn't a popularity contest like 7th grade class president??? This is the president of the united states of america. this actually matters. we dont care who is most popular or who isn't, we care about who is going to do the best job possible, and that's why he got re-elected.

sergeriver: what the hell do you mean the elections were arranged? Don't tell me you have fallen under the spell of the left-wing media!!!!!
1) you're not from america, i doubt you actually saw how things went on here during those elections.
2) yes the first election was close, real close. but you only need one more vote than the other guy to win.
3) how the hell does anyone actually think that the second time around was close? do people actually think kerry should have won ohio??? Bush won there by a landslide couple hundred thousand votes! there was nothing close about the second election, the people spoke.
2006-08-23 08:28:13
Trel
Member
+70|6982
http://dubyasong.ytmnd.com/
Good to be back.
2006-08-23 08:34:17
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6861

comet241 wrote:

there was nothing close about the second election, the people spoke.
Bush 50.7%, Kerry 48.3% overall. Bush 50.8 %, Kerry 48.7% in Ohio. Hardly a 'landslide'. Particularly impressive when you think about how terrible a candidate John Kerry was. That really says something about Bush.
2006-08-23 08:34:29
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

comet241 wrote:

tahadar wrote:

comet241 wrote:

again, thank you for proving that you do indeed care about the president of the united states of america
laughing about an idiot doesnt show that i care about him..proving an idiot is indeed an idiot doesnt mean i give a damn about him.

comet241 wrote:

what? he's already been re-elected?

well then, i suppose the people have spoken.
well then, congrats i guess. the worlds most powerful nation voted for a man accepted worldwide as an idiot! good job
when will you realize that this isn't a popularity contest like 7th grade class president??? This is the president of the united states of america. this actually matters. we dont care who is most popular or who isn't, we care about who is going to do the best job possible, and that's why he got re-elected.

sergeriver: what the hell do you mean the elections were arranged? Don't tell me you have fallen under the spell of the left-wing media!!!!!
1) you're not from america, i doubt you actually saw how things went on here during those elections.
2) yes the first election was close, real close. but you only need one more vote than the other guy to win.
3) how the hell does anyone actually think that the second time around was close? do people actually think kerry should have won ohio??? Bush won there by a landslide couple hundred thousand votes! there was nothing close about the second election, the people spoke.
1. I am from America.
2. Whenever it comes to one state, and a recount to boot, its a close election.
3. All of which were case on electronic voting machines, we'll never know whether or not they were tampered with.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-23 08:35:01)

2006-08-23 08:42:59
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7001|NJ
America Land of the free, where the dead are so exicited about voted they get up from there eternal slumber and do so........

And Kerry was a horrible apponiant(everthing about picking him was wrong from the place he lived to his mannerism), and gore won the popular vote which put the electoral collage under scruteny...

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-08-23 08:43:44)

2006-08-23 08:44:04
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

jonsimon wrote:

2. Whenever it comes to one state, and a recount to boot, its a close election.
I assume you are not talking about the last election (2004). If not 6 years (2000)is an awful long time to be complaining about recounts.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-23 08:44:18)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-23 08:56:00
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

Kmarion wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

2. Whenever it comes to one state, and a recount to boot, its a close election.
I assume you are not talking about the last election (2004). If not 6 years (2000)is an awful long time to be complaining about recounts.
I am talking about the 04 election. They had a delay getting the votes in in Ohio.
2006-08-23 09:00:30
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Was there a recount?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-23 09:05:10
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801

Kmarion wrote:

Was there a recount?
There may not have been, I remember a delay, perhaps I am simply recalling fears that recounts were imminent.

EDIT: Yes, there was a recount in Ohio requested by independent candidates.

From wiki: "Although the overall result of the election was not challenged by the Kerry campaign, independent presidential candidates David Cobb and Michael Badnarik obtained a recount in Ohio. This recount was completed December 28, 2004, amid allegations of illegal recount procedures in many counties."

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-23 09:07:26)

2006-08-23 09:07:14
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

There was something about the "black" vote not being counted right in Ohio but it was quickly dropped in court.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-08-23 09:29:06
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7063|Argentina

comet241 wrote:

sergeriver: what the hell do you mean the elections were arranged? Don't tell me you have fallen under the spell of the left-wing media!!!!!
1) you're not from america, i doubt you actually saw how things went on here during those elections.
2) yes the first election was close, real close. but you only need one more vote than the other guy to win.
3) how the hell does anyone actually think that the second time around was close? do people actually think kerry should have won ohio??? Bush won there by a landslide couple hundred thousand votes! there was nothing close about the second election, the people spoke.
1: Didn't know it was required to be american to talk about the elections, which you only could know about being there at that moment.  I apologize.
2.You're american and you're wrong.  In America you don't need more votes to win, you can still win having less votes than the other guy.  Gore had more votes than Bush, only that he stole Florida votes to gain the electors from that state.  In fact that is what you vote, electors who then decide for you.
3.If Kerry would have stolen some votes from Ohio, he'd be president, despite the fact that the guy sucks.

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-08-23 09:31:28)

2006-08-23 09:35:21
AAFCptKabbom
Member
+127|6964|WPB, FL. USA

Wasder wrote:

KnowMeByTrailOfDead wrote:

2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....2 more years.....

Then we can pick some new dumbass from the pool and start over.  So far this cycle sucks.  When was the last time we had a quality prez or even a quality world leader?  I am talking someone the world could really rally behind.
Hmm... Kennedy? Too bad he was shot. If it wasn't for him, most of us wouldn't be born, as he and Khrushyov managed to drift out of the Carribean crisis which could potentially lead to a nuclear war.
What history book did you read???  Kennedy took us to the brink of nuclear war!  He was perceived as weak by Khrushchev because of the Bay of Pigs and the downing of the U2 spy plane.  Kennedy had charisma, charm and was widely admired {by myself and my parents as well}, but it's been proven that he wasn't the great leader we built him up to be.  Actually L.B.J. initiated, approved , and signed into law more legislation that helped Americans than any other president - too bad he didn't have Kennedy's charisma {not to mention that Vietnam thing he inherited - thanks again France}.  Also, matter of fact, if you look at the ratings of the best known presidents you'll find all of the approval ratings were average and the ones who made it to a second term were all lower at the end of their presidency.

Now back to the "Topic" - Bush is not well spoken however, he has proven to be a strong leader on a lot of issues, not all mind you.  I don't think anyone would be able to maintain their popularity after what this poor bastard had to deal with since day one.  It started with the first election, the hatred carried over to the second election, the anxiety of the threat of terrorism on a daily basis, the civil unrest in Iraq and people fighting and dieing to determine their future, nut-sacks like the leaders in N. Korea and Iran, etc.    Ain't it great to wish that it will be all better with someone else... !?!?! 

If you were objective minded then take some time to read some of Pres. Bush's presidential writings - hell even democratic critics have praised his writings - I think the guy just speaks from the heart and down to earth and is not trying to win a popularity contest - however, the guy does make me fucking laugh at times    I would luv to see him on SNL

Kaboom.
2006-08-23 09:45:49
jonsimon
Member
+224|6801
Nah, I gotta say, Kennedy did a superb job on the Cuban missile crisis. He basically restrained both the CIA and the Military from taking the offensive action they wanted to. Bay of Pigs wasn't really his fault, sure, he signed off on it, but the CIA had it set up before he likely knew too much about it.
2006-08-23 09:51:36
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6949|Seattle, WA

sergeriver wrote:

1: Didn't know it was required to be american to talk about the elections, which you only could know about being there at that moment.  I apologize.
2.You're american and you're wrong.  In America you don't need more votes to win, you can still win having less votes than the other guy.  Gore had more votes than Bush, only that he stole Florida votes to gain the electors from that state.  In fact that is what you vote, electors who then decide for you.
3.If Kerry would have stolen some votes from Ohio, he'd be president, despite the fact that the guy sucks.
1) I don't think thats what he meant, he only meant that you as an outsider obviously has less direct knowledge of what happened here, I think its safe to say thats true.

2) Well it depends on what you thought he meant, sure Gore had more popular votes but electoral votes are all that matters.  He only said you need one more vote than the other guy.  Well yeah one more electoral vote, don't be so quick to assume

3) Ummm no!? Ohio was locked up, ok look at these facts:

A) More people voted in the last election than only a couple other elections in the history of the US. 

B) Bush received ~4 MILLION more popular votes than Kerry. 

C) Bush also received more than enough electoral votes from different states that Ohio didn't matter.  (It usually does though)

And at least were on the same page that Kerry sucks 
2006-08-23 10:07:27
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7001|NJ
It's kinda funny looking at the Poll, it hasn't really changed from a 70/30 point since day one...
2006-08-23 10:08:41
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6806|Los Angeles

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

3) Ummm no!? Ohio was locked up, ok look at these facts:
A) More people voted in the last election than only a couple other elections in the history of the US. 
B) Bush received ~4 MILLION more popular votes than Kerry. 
C) Bush also received more than enough electoral votes from different states that Ohio didn't matter.  (It usually does though)
Questions for Mr Wesker:

1) Do A and B have somthing to do with Ohio?

2) What does A have to do with anything? I don't understand your point in posting it.

3) Bush got 3,012,499 more popular votes than Kerry, not 4 million. Correct? Or am I looking at an incorrect source?

4) Bush got 286 electoral votes vs Kerry with 251. Ohio represents 20 electoral votes. Had Kerry won Ohio, Bush would have had 266 electoral votes vs Kerry with 271. Which is wrong, my math or your statement that "Bush also received more than enough electoral votes from different states that Ohio didn't matter."?
2006-08-23 10:12:07
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6949|Seattle, WA

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Questions for Mr Wesker:

1) Do A and B have somthing to do with Ohio?

2) What does A have to do with anything? I don't understand your point in posting it.

3) Bush got 3,012,499 more popular votes than Kerry, not 4 million. Correct? Or am I looking at an incorrect source?

4) Bush got 286 electoral votes vs Kerry with 251. Ohio represents 20 electoral votes. Had Kerry won Ohio, Bush would have had 266 electoral votes vs Kerry with 271. Which is wrong, my math or your statement that "Bush also received more than enough electoral votes from different states that Ohio didn't matter."?
Answers for Mr. Shipbuilder

1) No of course not and I did not mean to imply they did.

2) I was implying that more people got off their lazy asses to vote (and mostly AGAINST Kerry)

3) I'm sorry that is why I put the amazing ~ because I was approximating.  I was only off by a million (oh wait I was approximating again) I was off by exactly 987,501.

4) Urgh, yes I was wrong factually, I guess I didn't get my main message across.  Which was that Ohio was locked, there wasn't any way that Kerry could have won that state.  My statement that Ohio didn't matter is wrong.

Edit: Thanks for correcting me BTW, I only need that once in awhile, usually I'm not this bad. 

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-23 10:13:10)

2006-08-23 11:07:53
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6798|Connecticut
I think Lewis Black said it the best in one of his stand up routines. " Congress is nothing more than a republican standing up and saying 'I have a bad idea' and then the democrat stands up and says ' I can make it shittier'  ".
Malloy must go

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 18

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard