Originally posted by jsobecky
The typo...well that was uncalled for. I couldn't help it, though, coming right after you referred to yourself as intellectual. My
Ah. I see why you thought that was pretty repellant. When I used the phrase "intellectual snob", I meant that I can be someone who is snobbish
about a lack of intellect and education, not someone who is an intellectual and
... though I'm not sure I've made it any clearer!
And please understand - I have no problem with "stupid people". A person's intelligence or education does not define their value or worth. I know
a great many people who have not been classically educated, but have skills and experience which leave me awestruck. In short, I wasn't attacking
the "common man", I was attacking Bush's celebration of willful ignorance.
I just think that the Presidency is an intellectually demanding position, requiring wit, education, insight, rationality and clarity of thought.
Based on the evidence I've read and seen, I don't think Bush is the guy for the job - not by a long shot. I'll happily debate the fact of his
stupidity if anyone can present a contrary argument, but I think it's pretty cut and dried.
Originally posted by Homer Jay
I know people with MDs who routinely butcher the English language, so please don't fall back on that crutch. By the way, I'd rather have a President
who uses the word "misunderestimate" than another President who needs to debate the meaning of the word "is".
Well, Homer Jay, we both know I could supply a page of quotes from Bush that don't just illustrate his inability to formulate a whole sentence, but
also his ignorance of world events, history, economics, diplomacy, domestic and foreign policy, religion... the list goes on and on.
My particular favourite, by the way, was "the trouble with the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur
." Beautiful. Just
I could also wax lyrical about Dubya's blank, vacant expression, his stumbling style of oration (even when using an autocue), his multiple - and
significant - business failures, or his staggering lack of tact, sensitivity or subtlety ("Crusade", anyone?). As I said before, I realise
that some people bash Bush because it's fashionable, and call him stupid because it's become common knowledge; I, on the other hand, call him stupid
because I have yet to see, hear or read a single sign of intelligence issue from him. Even the pro-Bush media outlets, even the hardest of hard-line
Republicans, make no great claims for his intellect. His stupidity, for crying out loud, was part of his election campaign! "Don't trust the
shifty intellectual, vote for the plain homespun all-American guy"? I'm paraphrasing, I admit, but not by much.
I can understand, too, your point about preferring
an under-educated President to an over-educated President - that, as I understand it, was a
contributing factor in Gore's near-defeat in 2000 - but the question to you have to ask is this: is Bush, with his failings, faults and inadequacies,
forgiveable as they may be in someone who doesn't
have the power to order the last superpower to war; is he capable
of running the US
I say not.
Reagen, by all accounts, wasn't the smartest guy who ever lived, but he didn't need to be. The same goes for any number of Presidents, great and
mediocre - and the same applies to the past leaders of any
country, come to that. Simple and straight-talking doesn't necessarily mean dumb -
but Bush and his supporters are trying to pass off
dumb as simple and straight-talking, and that just doesn't work.
Of course, this is getting off the topic - it's the lies, the warlike behaviour and the megalomania that cause people to hate
stupidity just makes him pitiful.