Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (457905)	9/12/2003 3:58:41 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 769667

There's no way to determine the IQ without him having taken the test...which he has not..... you're full of crap as usual......

To: American Spirit who wrote (457905)	9/12/2003 3:59:45 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

If Bush is smart, why can't he speak without a script? Recently, when he tried, he came out with that brilliant line "Bring 'em on!" probably costing dozens of our troops their lives. It's well-known that Bush has to be carefully handled, kept away from the press except to wisecrack (which he's good at) and that he is and has always been a front man for Big Oil and other corporate special interests. Certainly, we deserve a lot better.

To: American Spirit who wrote (457905)	9/12/2003 4:01:19 PM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"Democrats Define Themselves Ever Downward" Posted by the ChronWatch Founder, Jim Sparkman Wednesday, June 11, 2003 Lewis Fein, writing in the Jewish World Review, comments on the Democrats campaign strategy of declaring that "Bush is an idiot." He notes that this is a strategy that is certainly doomed to fail. Every president has both a positive and negative narrative, a story of unflinching heroism or crass stupidity and total corruption. Thus, Ronald Reagan is either a sign of tremendous optimism or dangerous senility; Bill Clinton a forceful and charismatic leader, or a rapacious (both politically and physically) cynic. But President George W. Bush's story - the fable about a stolen election and immoral war, about fabricated weapons and convenient tyrants--is a tale of such hatred, such absolute blindness, and political deafness, that it threatens to permanently redefine the Democratic Party downward. Yet, the Democratic Party firmly believes--ts partisans eagerly recite and its financiers encouragingly echo--a campaign slogan without a genuine message: "George W. Bush is an idiot!" If Democrats widely accept this message, have their presidential candidates imbibe it and their congressional members absorb it, then the party will reduce itself to hatred and defeat -- to a pitiful adaptation of the drunkard's lament and the loser's refrain, "The fools don't deserve us. They'll regret their decision, and we'll ignore their pleas for forgiveness." This destructive attitude also has its own mistaken strategy, an offering before an idol known as intellectualism. For it is the shrine of intelligence, not the altar of wisdom or the pulpit of life experience, that now drives the Democratic Party toward a destination that is as doomed as it is preordained: presidential oblivion. The party still seeks an articulate but excessively liberal savior, Adlai Stevenson with hair and soft money. Instead, the party will nominate (and delegates will cheer) the candidate of perfect diction--of Al Sharpton's ghetto verse, John Kerry's Brahmin words or Howard Dean's bitter choice - and no direction. The nominee will condemn the president, mock Bush's intelligence and belittle the commander-in-chief's judgment; and Democrats will applaud mightily, loudly and, yes, stupidly. True power begins with solemnity or modesty, victory imbued with purpose and decision. How can a party govern - to whom shall the mantle of leadership fall--when the agenda of a previously great organization (of Jackson and Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy) reduces itself to a choice between an ashamed aristocrat from Yale (Kerry) and a mad doctor from Vermont (Dean)? The real journey must first be an acknowledgment, one delivered amidst protests and jeers: that making President Bush an enemy may elicit applause, but it will neither defeat him politically nor strengthen the Democratic Party morally. Hate the president's policies, perhaps; loathe the man personally, never. But Democrats choose to supplant policy with personality, with the misguided notion--not unlike the opposition's attitude during the Clinton years--that character alone, full knowledge of the incumbent's ignorance or duplicity, will vanquish the current White House occupant. This approach is maximum folly, an epitaph for the true believer and the easily entranced: "He died for the cause." What cause? That IQ trumps common sense, that voters prefer political combat over reasoned choice? That the question itself exists--that this war between civility and debased flagellation against President Bush continues--leaves all democrats (small "d") poorer. The real challenge for Democrats is to reclaim the job of responsibility and opportunity. The summons to power, if not greatness, begins first with respect--toward this nation, for its people and of its leaders. Anything short of respect (never mind admiration) will leave Democrats bewildered and jealous, a permanent minority party. The journey ahead is clear, the conclusion obvious. The only mystery is whether Democrats will even begin this arduous trip.

To: American Spirit who wrote (457905)	9/12/2003 4:01:59 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

The neocons needed a weak President -- they got their wish.

To: American Spirit who wrote (457905)	9/12/2003 4:36:21 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

snopes.com YOU are actually the moron....and have zero credibility

To: American Spirit who wrote (457905)	9/15/2003 8:14:09 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

As obvious as this joke was, at least two publications were taken in by it: The [London] Guardian and the New Zealand Southland Times. Both ran the "Presidential I.Q." tale as a factual item (on 19 July and 7 August 2001 respectively). The Associated Press publicized The Guardian's error on 12 August, moving The Guardian to post a retraction on 14 August, and U.S. News & World Report clearly reported the I.Q. item as a hoax on 20 August, 2001.

To: American Spirit who wrote (457905)	9/15/2003 8:35:08 AM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

That article is phoney and you knew it was phoney. So much for your integrity!