Bush Hits Post 9/11 Low.

[KrazyHorse]

He actually pauses to savor the speech

I think that's supposed to be his "thoughtful" look.

He really doesn't project an air of intelligence, even as much as his father or Clinton did...

[Kropotkin]

AH, we must remember that we're questioning the leader of the free world here. Imran and others can call every damn president in the US history for 'the smartest man of his time' and the rest of the bunch will nod. Saying that one of 'em might be stupid is of cource heresy!

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
AH, we must remember that we're questioning the leader of the free world here. Imran and others can call every damn president in the US history for 'the smartest man of his time' and the rest of the bunch will nod. Saying that one of 'em might be stupid is of cource heresy!

Actually you would be wrong. Not all American Presidents were smart and not all Americans would say that they are. But I do question the appraisals of Bush JR. simply because of they way he does his speeches. He isn't the best speaker in the world. But just because he isn't a great orator, like Clinton, doesn
t mean he is stupid. He gave a speech to family members of some of the killed Americans recently. You know what. It wasn't the Getteysburg address and it wasn't a great oratation, he simply talked to them like they were people and like he actually cared that they loved ones had died. Maybe you all prefer carefully crafted speeches that sound really really good, but I perfer a guy that sounds like he actully cares.

And AH, lets see a picture of you. then we can determine just how smart you are.

[Kropotkin]

Sprayber 1) notice that some said in this thread might be sarcasms. 2) I don't think he's smart or not due to his speech-writers. If you do and think he actually cares that's up to you. It doesn't change what I think of the mans intelligence a bit.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Sprayber 1) notice that some said in this thread might be sarcasms. 2) I don't think he's smart or not due to his speech-writers. If you do and think he actually cares that's up to you. It doesn't change what I think of the mans intelligence a bit.

Some of what is said is sarcasm. But a lot of the people here I believe think that way because everyone else says it's true or just because he stumbles on his words. All I'm saying is don't judge the man by the way he makes public speeches. Not everyone can be great orators and not every great orator is by defualt a great man.

And I still want to see a picture of AH to see how smart he really is.

[Sprayber]

Let me clairify one thing. I'm not dubya's biggest supporter. If there would have been someone else in the race besides Gore and Nadar, I would not have voted for him. But to sit and insult the man because of his clumsy speech is not giving him a chance. I thought liberals were supposed to be open minded. I guess it goes back to being open minded about people that agree with them.

Complain about his policies all you want. There is a lot of room for real criticizims for that.


Now Perot, He was a nut j/k

[Kropotkin]

Oh well it's not how he says it but what he says that makes me think of him at somewhat stupid. His history don't really help either but maybe that's not fair considering that can easily be the result of the discource of those that have written about it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Electoral College, I suggest you read up on it . And the newspapers... say Bush won Florida.

What the newspapers (who were biased against Gore anyway) didn't emphasize in the report was this:

In any statewide recount of the votes in Florida, Gore would have won. Even under the strictest of standards, Gore beat Bush by 2 votes.

However, Bush only won under the selective recount method.

And it was Gore's stupid team that wanted the selective recount, yes. But the fact still remains that Gore got the most votes in Florida and should have been declared the winner.

I won't go into the fraudulent absentee military ballots for Bush. But there were a lot of them.

Voter fraud is equally practiced by both major parties, and any one that doesn't do it is stupid because it's handing votes to your opponent. It's yet another reason why the system is broken.

[Ecthy]

noone ever noticed my joke

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


What the newspapers (who were biased against Gore anyway) didn't emphasize in the report was this:

In any statewide recount of the votes in Florida, Gore would have won. Even under the strictest of standards, Gore beat Bush by 2 votes.

However, Bush only won under the selective recount method.

And it was Gore's stupid team that wanted the selective recount, yes. But the fact still remains that Gore got the most votes in Florida and should have been declared the winner.

I won't go into the fraudulent absentee military ballots for Bush. But there were a lot of them.

Voter fraud is equally practiced by both major parties, and any one that doesn't do it is stupid because it's handing votes to your opponent. It's yet another reason why the system is broken.

There is no question Gore got more votes, but the question is who got more legal votes. Under the recont Gore wanted he would have lost. Elections are a legal process, and you need to follow the proper procedure in order for your vote to count.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


There is no question Gore got more votes, but the question is who got more legal votes. Under the recont Gore wanted he would have lost. Elections are a legal process, and you need to follow the proper procedure in order for your vote to count.

Nope, you didn't read it...Under every statewide recount of LEGAL votes, using the strictest standards, Gore won. It was only due to the selective nature of the recounts (certain counties over others) and the Supreme Court's unconstitutional stopping of the recount that handed it to Bush.

Following proper procedures, Gore would have won.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
However, Bush only won under the selective recount method.

That was the method that Gore wanted, Boris. You can not blame Bush for that.

BTW, it was the fact that Gore was unable to win his home state that cost him the election.

[Boris Godunov]

And Bush wanted the statewide, so who is to say whose should be better?

Actually, Bush wanted no recount so he could procede directly to coronation...

Gore's losing TN was embarrasing, but not what lost it for him. He won, but Florida was robbed from him by Scalia and Co.

Besides, TN is a solidly Republican state, Gore's loss wasn't unimaginable. There hasn't been a statewide democrat elected in TN since 1988, and that Democrat was Gore. Given that Gore's opponent was a popular Southern governor, I think Gore's loss of the state is pretty understandable.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And Bush wanted the statewide, so who is to say whose should be better?

I can definately say that Bush had better advisors given the available evidence.

Actually, Bush wanted no recount so he could procede directly to coronation...

Given the fact that he already had the result he wanted, can you blame him? Do you truely think that Gore would have been any different had the situations been reversed?

Given that Gore's opponent was a popular Southern governor, I think Gore's loss of the state is pretty understandable.

His lose of the state was due two factors, IMO, 1) he fact that he ran a slipshod campaign there and 2) He lost touch with the residents of his own state.

He might have won TN had he actually fought for it.