It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


So you think Bush is stupid?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 10:38 PM

Dubya's resum in of itself says little more than: insider connections, are you familiar with the concept of legacy when used in conjunction with University admissions? Colleges and Universities recieve their greatest funding from Alumni. Fraternal organizations, like Skull and Bones, also provide funding and influance University politics. The Bush family has been involved with both Yale University and Skull and Bones since 1918.

You are naive to assume that every student who is accepted to, attends, and recieves a degree from any University has done so on their own merits.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 12:18 AM
I agree that legacy is what got Bush into Harvard & Yale; but once there, he did have to pass the classes himself to graduate. I think you're grasping at straws to assume that getting into a college that way leads to being given a degree without having to earn it.

If Bush just bought his two degrees and it could be proven, it would destroy the credibility of Harvard and Yale forever. No university would threaten its own long-term existence for a short-term payoff from a rich alumni parent that won't last forever... that just doesn't make sense, not even from a conspiracy theory point of view.

If Bush's degrees were frauds, there would be people coming from all walks of life at Harvard & Yale (liberal professors, teaching assistants, tutors, students that were in classes with him, etc.) revealing their stories... and those stories would have broke when Bush was running for Governor of Texas, much less President of the United States.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 12:23 AM
I shall do my impression of one of Bush's great speeches.

Freedom and liberty, the two things of which I do not know the definition and undoubtably cannot spell, but it matters not, for aslong as I keep hammering these words into the media, they shall buy it without asking any questions. We shall free and liberate the Iraqis, we shall give them a democracy they are not socialy devoloped enough to understand, we shall allow Saddam to stand on trial so he can reccount all of our secret trades and imbargos and lastly, we shall protect the American people and the world from these ' Evil Doers ' we created.

Bastard guy Bush


posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 03:55 AM
Strangeland, your dissmissing of me has been noted....and rejected.
Dismiss this dude.....

In the strangeLand, people believe that quotes taken out of context and strung together (aka m.moore editing style) can make a statement turn from OPINION into TRUTH.

The fact remains that out of context statements, without knowing anything about the body of the discussions around the quote, or anything about the target audience, are exactly as ive labled them... OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES...YES Bush may have uttered those words in fact, but im not buying into selective editing...picking choice soundbites in order to support only the opinion you seek to uphold. It is a shallow argument.
One designed to then try and apply linkage to totally unrelated select quotes to draw a conclusion thru the arguments design...its like asking a baiting or loaded question.

Did we look at the entire context around the quotes? Did we look at ALL of the Presidents speaches to determine a statistical view of these "verbal discrepancies" as compared to the whole?

NO, what was done was selective use of choice quotes to creativly weave an OPINION.

Do we want to talk about the second hand hearsay alledged quote about Bush talking to god again?
hearsay is all that needs to be said to distinguish this statement of wishful thinking from FACT.

Please notice that at no time have I even attempted to defend weather or not the President is "stupid" as this would have to be a general statement at best. and one based on SPECULATION. Therefore, as I am not trying to prove Bush is intelligent, I have no need for links, stats or evidence to support my position that your argument is flawed...Bush may indeed be a total idiot, but the arguments your using to support this have no basis in anything tangible to guage this with, or compare against.
How do you support this intangible position is what i am asking...
Please note this threads title is "So you think Bush is stupid"
It doesnt say "defend the Presidents intellect"
The general discussion here would then lean twords those making these claims, showing FACTS to back up those allegations, not the other way around.

If you are trying to help me deny ignorance on this topic, fine, ive read every link and word provided in this thread...and even if i wanted to believe or at least had an open mind about Bush's intelligence.
Your arguments are so full of emotional, knee-jerk, speculations, that as a reasonable person, I cannot find any VALIDITY for your position.

What I have done is asked those making these claims to explain themselves, and provide actual FACTS not opinion, not hearsay, not speculations...YOU are the one making charges on this thread not me, so YOU need to find something more credible than the schlock you spewed from your vocal orafice, or just wipe that hole and get off the toilet.

Strangeland says, "remember, just typing "SPECULATIVE" doesn't actually count as a rebuttal"
I think in like the 4th grade, they start teaching kids to look at a sentance and classify it as a statement of fact, expression of emotion, speculation, opinion....ect...ect....Use of this technique to analyse statements is a perfectly legitimate way to examine what someone is saying, and to see how much of it is fact or fiction. Perhaps a refresher course in this language skill would be helpful for you?

Care to post your resume next to Bush's for comparison?

Its ok, believe in your little misinformation if it helps keep you sane.
Just dont be suprised when someone calls you out on the alledged "facts" your using or the maner in which they are presented.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:57 AM

Sorry, are you done? I may have dozed off there for a while. Reading the same thing over and over and over again has a strangely soporific effect on me...

Bush's resume is worth precisely nothing. A man should be judged by his words and his actions, not how many degrees Daddy managed to buy for him.

I don't have to prepare a detailed graph of the stupidity content of Bush's speeches - particularly when the guy is so dumb the White House won't let him out the Residence unless he's got an autocue in front of him. Not that it seems to do much good...

The President of the United States thought the US and Japan had been allies for a hundred and fifty years! Doesn't that indicate a slight ignorance of historical detail?

I'm finished with this, CazMedia. Besides anything else, I am staggered that someone can be so arrogant as to think that they, and they alone, see the "truth", while the millions of people who denounce Bush the Lesser as a fraud, a crook and an ignorant, witless, dribbling moron are simply gullible. So you can squat in this thread denying all the evidence laid before you, like Canute denying the incoming tide, and busy yourself redefining the meanings of words and demanding ever-more arcane and ridiculoud classes of "evidence" until your boy is unceremoniously booted from the front door of the White House next Inaugeration Day.

Meanwhile, those of us who aren't so blinded by Republican spin will keep our gaze on what really matters - Junior's next mistake.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 01:32 PM

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Bush's resume is worth precisely nothing. A man should be judged by his words and his actions, not how many degrees Daddy managed to buy for him.

We're not discussing his character in this thread -- which is what you'd use his words and actions to decide -- we're discussing his intelligence. Actually, we're not even trying to determine if he's a genius (above average) -- just whether or not he's stupid (below average).

You can be a smart person who does unethical things for their own ends just as well as you can be a stupid person who does ethical things because they care about other people. A person's intelligence and character are two different measurements.

There's no disputing that his Dad got him into Harvard & Yale; but getting in a program, and actually going through it and completing it, are two different things. Where's the proof that his Dad just bought his degrees for him? If that were the case, it would be easy to prove...

I don't care for Bush. I don't like how he's handled a lot of things, from the environment to education to the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 tragedy. But I don't think calling him "stupid" because you don't like him is fair. I was no fan of Clinton either when he was President, but I never thought he was stupid. I thought he was quite smart, in fact... but not an ethical person.

[edit on 7/5/2004 by ThunderCloud]

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 02:49 PM
With respect TC, I wasn't the one who brought up the subject of Bush's resume or his alleged qualifications.

I'm not calling Bush stupid because I don't like him- and I'm not an American citizen, remember, so I have the advantage of distance - I don't like him because he's stupid.

When I look at Dubya, I see no evidence of intelligence, and I see nothing which suggests he even attended the prestigious schools you mention, let alone completed any kind of rigorous academic process. And your assurances aside, I don't think there's any question that either Harvard or Yale would leap at the chance to give Baby Bush a lovely gilt-edged certificate in exchange for some under-the-counter "donations".

What I meant was simply this: qualifications, particularly dubious ones, do not make the man. If Bush is smart, he should have shown some sign of it by now. For goodness sake, if he's average, he should have shown some sign of it by now! All I have seen, and heard, and read, tells me that he is an ignoramous in a bad suit. I really can't put it any plainer than that, and I've seen nothing in this thread (or any other) which has made me reconsider my opinion.

I respect your position, and I appreciate your candour and sincerity.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:16 PM
Yes, I think Bush is stupid. I also think wild bears defecate in forested areas, and the Pope is a member of the Roman Catholic Church. The defenders of Bush on this thread are also making fools of themselves. One Bush defender says that evidence of Bush's many misstatements and inability to communicate coherently doesn't mean he is stupid, he may just have a learning disability. Well, one of the main ways we judge intelligence is by oral communication ability. One definition of intelligence is the ability to learn, so if Bush has a learning disability, then, by definition, he is stupid. I know that sounds cruel, but it is true.

Another Bush defender dismisses mountains of evidence as speculation and opinion. That is nothing but rhetorical hand-waving, and contributes nothing to the discussion. When confronted with actual quotes from Bush, you need to either dispute the accuracy of the quote, or make an argument as to why the quotes don't show that Bush is stupid.

I mean, come on guys. Listen to Bush in any unscripted situation, when he has not been able to rehearse his answers. He is invariably unresponsive and incoherent. His appearance on Meet the Press and his last prime-time press conference are classic examples. I also strongly suspect that he was given the questions in advance for both those dismal performances. Carole Coleman, the Irish journalist, said she was required to submit her questions three days in advance. For a ten-minute interview? Please. Dick Cheney, Condaleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Bill Clinton could all sit down for such an interview and give reasoned coherent answers without any advance preparation. That's what intelligent people do in interviews. The fact that Bush had Coleman's questions three days in advance and was still unresponsive and rambling is compelling evidence that he is stupid.

Want further evidence? Bush has referred to Africa as a country and the people who live in Greece as Grecians. Finally, consider a couple of Bush responses in an interview with Diane Sawyer on December 16, 2003.

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

If this answer doesn't convince you that Bush is stupid, you are simply refusing to honestly evaluate the evidence. There is no difference between actuality and possibility? Only a moron would say that.

DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.

That second answer is totally unresponsive to the question. In my opinion, giving unresponsive answers is a good sign of stupidity, because it shows a lack of understanding of the question.

Please read the entire interview. You will find many more examples of incoherent, unresponsive answers by Bush.

[edit on 7/5/2004 by donguillermo]

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:35 PM
By the way, here is a link to Part 1 of the Diane Sawyer interview.

posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 02:54 AM
Strangelands I have created a post explaining why i beleve Bush to be smart entitled "why I believe bush s a genius" I would like to hear your thoughts.

new topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in