Blair: Bush is 'highly intelligent'

[Drogue]

In terms of ideology, pretty close. They have different policies, but that is mostly down to different political pressures/climate in the different countries. It's the closest comparison you could make between the two nations parties IMHO.

[Guynemer]

In the 2000 Election, one candidate was the scion of a political dynasty; who owed nearly every achievement of his life to his name, including being admitted to Ivy League schools; who had an intellectual capability that was grossly misrepresented by the media; who was shockingly indebted and entangled with shady corporations and special interests; and who has a habit of saying really dumb things.

And the other candidate was George W. Bush.


Look, George II is not an idiot. I've said many times, I don't think he is any less intelligent than the average American. I have serious doubts that he is smarter than the average American, but that's as may be. His IQ doesn't bother me.

And I don't doubt that he has some significant quantity of strength of character. Sure, he may have abandoned his National Guard post during Vietnam, but he also overcame alcoholism, and quite possibly cocaine dependence as well. That, my friends, is very, very impressive, and deserves a measure of respect that is often lacking from my fellow leftists.

On the other hand, his hypocritical treatment of drug users deserves nothing but derision. That's what bothers me about him--his politics. IQ? SAT scores? Who gives a flying ****? His politics are the problem, and that's what we liberals should attack; not his supposed lack of brain power.

[GePap]

Bush has gotten most of the policies he sought implemented, and has failed with a few as well.

I like what Guynemer said. I only call people stupid when they do something stupid or say something stupid (which is different from saying something I disagree with). Bush's problem with the english language is what motivates people to call him an idiot. you can;t be an idiot and become president. On the other hand, Bush is certainly not a genius, nor is he as "book-smart" and "witty" as Clinton. He does have a perseverence and a commitment that is greater then Clinton's.

I would love a president with bush commitment and Clinton's Brain, specially since I can;t stand 90% of Bush agenda, domestic or international.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GePap
I would love a president with bush commitment and Clinton's Brain, specially since I can;t stand 90% of Bush agenda, domestic or international.

That sounds pretty good

[raghar]

Originally posted by GePap
you can;t be an idiot and become president.

Why do you think so?

[orange]

A blast with a shotgun is bound to hit something.

Spoken like a true Texan.

Look, George II is not an idiot.

I have serious doubts that he is smarter than the average American...

These two statements contradict each other, Guy

[GePap]

Originally posted by raghar

Why do you think so?

becuase you need to have shown some previous manegerial experience, you need to know how to politic, you need to know whom to trust, and how to pick you team..an Idiot simply would not get far.

[raghar]

Idiot with money and idiot with friends and contacts... he could go high. It's not as problematic be and idiot and go high, you just need people who would think they'll abuse you and would rule behind your back.

What about kim, he isn't idiot, but many people think so. If you look as people would expect, you could get pretty high, especialy in demo... regime.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drogue
Blair is not left wing though. With New Labour, it seems the Lib Dems are the only even slightly left party we had. I'm begining to think I'd rather have the Tories back, if it wasn't for them elected people like IDS as their leader. Blair and Bush, personally, seem to have a lot in common. The fact one wants slightly higher tax and better public services, and the other want's the opposite, probably wouldn't come up in Foreign Relations.

Actually, their relationship is similar to the relationshib between FDR and Churchill. On foreign policy, they saw eye-to-eye. But on domestic issues, one was a conservative and the other a liberal.

[TCO]

Blair is staunch.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So far he's allowed military leaders to make miltary decisions.
Made for well-run operations that were quickly over.

What a dope Bush is.

For some reason I think it was Churchill who said the best leaders are the ones who can figure out when to shut up and let the experts do their jobs.

Or something to that effect.

[Odd]

Determination towards a good cause can do wonders. Determination towards a bad cause can lead to disaster. Now, I´m not crazy to try to argue with you guys if his cause is good or bad, even because I don´t believe in this good or evil crap, it makes you forget to stop to think sometimes if maybe you´re not so right and the "others" are not so wrong.

But I can says that people usually like determined presidents. Our last president was a very inteligent man that did several small improvements without any radicalism. He delivered a country that was better in many aspects than when he assumed, but made no revolutions. He was hardly liked by the people.
One of Brazil´s most popular president, JK (not JFK), had a motto with was "fifty years in five". Money was not a concern of his. He had a bunch of megalomaniacal projects to develop the country and delivered them all, including moving our capital from Rio to Brasilia (equivalent of transfering Russia capital from Moscow to a city started from scratch in Siberia). He dipped the country´s finances into ****, but said that would be no problem since we would be rich because of his policies. Then we would be able to pay for all that stuff. Well, the country grew (just as anyother country did in the '50), but not like he promised. But the debts were still there. Ooops.

[Spiffor]

Chirac too is determined... to become the worst Jackass of the world
I'm not sure if his delusions of grandeur will bring him much popularity in the end. You'd say De Gaulle is extremely popular in France, but it's not the same. The main difference between Chirac and De Gaulle is that De Gaulle had prestige, charisma of a Statesman, and managed to have things his way. Chirac only barks without getting the cookie

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I think I'm doing fine voicing fine critics against your simplistic leftish way of argumentation.

But I should understand that you mean 'critical thinking against the rightwing guys' when you say 'critical thinking'

critical opinions against leftish is not a part of it of course
Because, leftish people are superior.
I'm sorry for being that stupid to forget that all the time.

If you feel relying on shallow logical fallacies is "fine," more power to you. Other posters will notice my first post was about facts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
What is Yale material?

I have no idea, but I reckon 1400 is pretty much minimal.