Why I'll Vote Against Bush

[enjolras]

That was on purpose. I have some problems with Kerry, chief among them being his support for this Iraq bs. But my problems with Bush's incompetence are so much greater - like on the scale of the Rocky Mountains.

Pretty much the same for me. It all comes down to simple intellect for me... a vote for Bush is a lot like giving the keys to your ferrari to a 15 year old kid and telling him to go have fun. He can technically drive, but he's likely to damn stupid (aren't all 15 year olds? ) to keep from getting in trouble.

Bush is simply not a smart man... i'm tired of beating around the Bush on this. Voting for Bush is voting for a intellectual midget. I'll never understand why anyone would want to put the fate of this country in his hands.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Pretty much the same for me. It all comes down to simple intellect for me... a vote for Bush is a lot like giving the keys to your ferrari to a 15 year old kid and telling him to go have fun. He can technically drive, but he's likely to damn stupid (aren't all 15 year olds? ) to keep from getting in trouble.

Bush is simply not a smart man... i'm tired of beating around the Bush on this. Voting for Bush is voting for a intellectual midget. I'll never understand why anyone would want to put the fate of this country in his hands.

GWBush is not the smartest person in the country. But then, neither was Bill Clinton, GHWBush, Ron Reagan, or any other president.

But you can't be serious calling him an intellectual midget. Only the most mindless of leftwing sheep believe that crap. I think you are smarter than that. If you do believe it, do you have any evidence to base that belief on or are you just repeating what you've heard a thousand times?

He's definitely not the smoothest talker in the country, but that's not really a very good indicator for intellect IMO.

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by enjolras

Pretty much the same for me. It all comes down to simple intellect for me... a vote for Bush is a lot like giving the keys to your ferrari to a 15 year old kid and telling him to go have fun. He can technically drive, but he's likely to damn stupid (aren't all 15 year olds? ) to keep from getting in trouble.

Bush is simply not a smart man... i'm tired of beating around the Bush on this. Voting for Bush is voting for a intellectual midget. I'll never understand why anyone would want to put the fate of this country in his hands.

I see you bought into that liberal tripe that the media spews

Messing up a few words during a speech does not a dumb person make.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by patteeu

GWBush is not the smartest person in the country. But then, neither was Bill Clinton, GHWBush, Ron Reagan, or any other president.

But you can't be serious calling him an intellectual midget. Only the most mindless of leftwing sheep believe that crap. I think you are smarter than that. If you do believe it, do you have any evidence to base that belief on or are you just repeating what you've heard a thousand times?

He's definitely not the smoothest talker in the country, but that's not really a very good indicator for intellect IMO.

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and had one of the highest IQs of any president we've ever had. Too bad he didn't employ that giant brain for every situation. Sometimes, the "other" head took over. rofl

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and had one of the highest IQs of any president we've ever had. Too bad he didn't employ that giant brain for every situation. Sometimes, the "other" head took over. rofl

Stiff pr!k has no cognitive ability. God gave man two heads and only blood enough for one to function properly at a time.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and had one of the highest IQs of any president we've ever had. Too bad he didn't employ that giant brain for every situation. Sometimes, the "other" head took over. rofl

Just for the record, I didn't say that Bill Clinton wasn't smart. I suspect that all of our recent presidents have been pretty bright people. I'm not making comparisons among the presidents, I'm making comparisons between presidents and the rest of the population.

It is silly to think GWBush can be as dumb as his critics charge but still win election to the presidency.

I don't believe Dan Quayle or Maxine Waters or Jim Trafficant are dummies either, to name a few.

[enjolras]

I see you bought into that liberal tripe that the media spews

Messing up a few words during a speech does not a dumb person make.

For one, liberalism is an ideology.. questioning Bush's mental capacity is not liberalism.

Maybe calling him an idiot is to strong, but he's certainly not an intellectual. His complete lack of intellectualism is the big turn off for me. He showed very little in the way of critical thinking skills surrounding the situation in Iraq (in the processing of intelligence). He has a disrespect for science that astounds me, largely because of his ties to religion. He was a C student on his best day, and the lack of fundamental intellectual skills shows in the way he talks, the way he tackles problems, and the way he approaches policy. His conclusions are almost always emotional, not scientific.

There is something to admire in emotional people (contrary to common sense they often make incredible business men), but I don't want them making the tough choices it takes to lead a country. I want someone who is TRAINED as a critical thinker. Someone who respects and applies the basic logic of problem solving. Bush simply doesn't have those tools.. he's fastball only pitcher trying to pitch in the major leagues.

You can see that in the way he handled intelligence in Iraq. He made purely emotional decisions, without questioning the sources. He saw a larger picture, but was never able to process the details. If he had we would be in a much better position today.. we may have still gone into Iraq, but for the right reasons. Not those based on a faulty premise held up by even shakier logic.

Really I want a giant do-over in 4 years. Kerry, clearly has these tools, but is far to much of a politician to be an effective president. I'm voting for the guy I think will do less damage in the next 4 years both at home and (more importantly) abroad. Give me McCain, Wesley Clark, or another moderate intellectual who HAS the tools to be president. They'll get my vote.

[Rohirrim]

enjolras, I'd give you some rep for that one, but I've got to spread it around some. Maybe I'll drop some on Mock, just to freak him out.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It all comes down to simple intellect for me... a vote for Bush is a lot like giving the keys to your ferrari to a 15 year old kid...



Bush is simply not a smart man... i'm tired of beating around the Bush on this. Voting for Bush is voting for a intellectual midget. I'll never understand why anyone would want to put the fate of this country in his hands.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Another reason to boot bush is because he is such an incredible flip-flopper:

Bush Now Saying 'We Will Win' Terror War

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._pr/cvn_bush_3

"The president has gone from mission accomplished to mission miscalculated to mission impossible on the war on terror,"

[orinjkrush]

honest to God, i will sit in the polling booth for an hour. i absolutely hate them both. the two party system is totally screwed. intellectuals lie. moralists are simpletons. i'm afraid i will throw up when i vote. clinton could have been the greatest. but he was a classic intellectual "what's your definition of....sex? purple hearts? principles?" Bush is merely a poster child. cheyney runs things. and Halliburton runs Cheyney. you best not be confused about that.
I would have voted for Nader except for the articles written by his employees. what a jerk. I am totally lost. I would vote for Mock or LA Broncos Fan before any of the real candidates. it makes me sick to my stomach even now.

[freak6]

Vote for Kerry for me then.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by enjolras

For one, liberalism is an ideology.. questioning Bush's mental capacity is not liberalism.

You are right about this, but Mile High Shack is also right that liberals advance the notion that Bush is a moron even though their real problem with him is ideological. I suspect that you wouldn't hear LABF praising Bush even if he was a former rocket scientist instead of a former oilman/baseball owner/rich frat kid/C student.

Originally Posted by enjolras

Maybe calling him an idiot is to strong, but he's certainly not an intellectual. His complete lack of intellectualism is the big turn off for me. He showed very little in the way of critical thinking skills surrounding the situation in Iraq (in the processing of intelligence). He has a disrespect for science that astounds me, largely because of his ties to religion. He was a C student on his best day, and the lack of fundamental intellectual skills shows in the way he talks, the way he tackles problems, and the way he approaches policy. His conclusions are almost always emotional, not scientific.

There is something to admire in emotional people (contrary to common sense they often make incredible business men), but I don't want them making the tough choices it takes to lead a country. I want someone who is TRAINED as a critical thinker. Someone who respects and applies the basic logic of problem solving. Bush simply doesn't have those tools.. he's fastball only pitcher trying to pitch in the major leagues.

You can see that in the way he handled intelligence in Iraq. He made purely emotional decisions, without questioning the sources. He saw a larger picture, but was never able to process the details. If he had we would be in a much better position today.. we may have still gone into Iraq, but for the right reasons. Not those based on a faulty premise held up by even shakier logic.

Really I want a giant do-over in 4 years. Kerry, clearly has these tools, but is far to much of a politician to be an effective president. I'm voting for the guy I think will do less damage in the next 4 years both at home and (more importantly) abroad. Give me McCain, Wesley Clark, or another moderate intellectual who HAS the tools to be president. They'll get my vote.

This was a good post (as were your previous efforts in this thread) even if I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.

What struck me as interesting as I read it though was that it sounded to me like the person you were describing as a preferable candidate was Jimmy Carter. He was an intelligent, detail oriented man with a good heart and, while he was religious, he was also grounded in science (he was a nuclear engineer). However, he was a failure as president.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by orinjkrush

...cheyney runs things. and Halliburton runs Cheyney. you best not be confused about that.

Dude, I hope you have your computer wrapped in tinfoil. Otherwise, they're going to know you said that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

liberals advance the notion that Bush is a moron even though their real problem with him is ideological.

Not true.

Our real problem with Smirk is his ideology and the fact that he is a moron.

I suspect that you wouldn't hear LABF praising Bush even if he was a former rocket scientist instead of a former oilman/baseball owner/rich frat kid/C student.

If Deserter Boy was a "former rocket scientist" (or had ever accomplished anything of any real substance in his life, for that matter) I would give props--just like I respect McCain's military service and heroism although I regard him as a political whore who allows himself (and his wife and daughter) to be sh*t on by worthless, amoral, back-stabbing, lying punks like bush and cheney.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I suspect that you wouldn't hear LABF praising Bush even if he was a former rocket scientist...

If Chimpy was a former rocket scientist, then odds are he wouldn't be a repuke (at least not a repuke who associates himself with the flat earth society that has taken over Washington and today's GOP.)

[RunByDesign]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

I see you bought into that liberal tripe that the media spews

Messing up a few words during a speech does not a dumb person make.

Lack of interpretive capability does, however. That would be true in your case, as well as Mr. Bush.

But then, that is why he has so much support. A large part of the population fits the mold that he puts on display for the world to see. An intellectual jackass, that is the hero of inbred hillbillys everywhere.

Case in point: waterschmuck, MHS, pattycake, rascal, etc. etc.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But then, that is why he has so much support. A large part of the population fits the mold that he puts on display for the world to see. An intellectual jackass, that is the hero of inbred hillbillys everywhere.

Case in point: waterschmuck, MHS, pattycake, rascal, etc. etc.

[RunByDesign]

*takes a bow*

[enjolras]

But then, that is why he has so much support. A large part of the population fits the mold that he puts on display for the world to see. An intellectual jackass, that is the hero of inbred hillbillys everywhere.

This is a fascinating subject by itself. I've lived in the south for the better part of my life (9 years in texas, 1 year in Florida, 2 in Georgia, and 6 in Arkansas). In those states, at least, intellectualism is considered (by a good portion of the population) as being backwards. Much of this comes down to a backlash against evolutionism and other scientific theories that contradict biblical teaching. This intellectual vacuum creates a society that values this elusive thing known as 'common sense'. Academics in their ivory towers don't really know anything, it's the guy with good old fashioned common sense who should be listened to.

What's fascinating about common sense is that it is often wrong. Perfectly wrong. I remember having this point driven home in a sociology class in college. We examined a ton of common sense statements (Such as a women is much safer at home than walking down a dark alley at night), statements that 'everyone' knows to be true, yet under scrutiny where actually incorrect. This fascinated me at the time, and it still does. It's had the net effect of making me rethink what common sense really is, and become MUCH more cynical about things that everyone knows. In short, I've become a true critical thinker.

I've found this epiphany frusturating. When someone throws something out and says 'it's just common sense' it's an argument killer. Since everyone knows that it is true, the argument is shut down. Facts mean very little to the argument as a whole.

Now to the point. Bush is a 'common sense' president. We heard throughout the 2000 campaign that he may not be extremely well educated, but he has the common sense a president needs to lead. To many (at least in the south) this message resonates because everyone knows that common sense is the most valuable form of knowledge (That's right, common sense VALIDATES common sense!). Thus, Bush must be the right man for the job.

It's impossible to argue the point, for the same reason common sense arguments are always impossible to argue with. A large segment of the population simply feels that knowledge not based on fact is the best kind of knowledge. I can accept that, it's part of living in a democracy. I still don't have to like it

NOTE: I have met a ton of people who fall into the category of valuing 'common sense' over intellectualism that are very smart people in their own right. They simply lack the education to understand the fallacy of their argument. They're not stupid, just missing a piece of the overall puzzle. So I take offense to the 'inbred hillbilly' comment.. because that's not who these people really are. For the most part they are people who have learned through experience... and experience on it's own doesn't always teach you the right lesson.

Which leads me to the Jimmy Carter comment. It's interesting you bring up Carter because he's not my ideal candidate because just like Bush he lacked some tools as well. Namely, experience. Throughout my posts on this thread you'll see a theme. I value the intellectual, the problem solver, and the critical thinker. These are valuable tools in almost any situation. However a thinker is only as effective as his experience allows him to be. Carter was aloof and people found him difficult to like. While he was a intellectual president, he was not a leader. He didn't have the basis of experience needed to BE a leader.

That's why I get behind people like McCain. He's an intellectual, likeable, experienced in politics, and has the credibility of being a true war hero. He has the tools a president needs and the experience to make them count. Bush lacks both the experience and the intellectual credibility I look for in a candidate. Kerry lacks the personality and leadership qualities I look for in a president. I still vote for Kerry, because I'd rather have an unlikable president that can run a steady ship rather than a likeable one that consistently makes the wrong decision.

[RunByDesign]

Originally Posted by enjolras

This is a fascinating subject by itself. I've lived in the south for the better part of my life (9 years in texas, 1 year in Florida, 2 in Georgia, and 6 in Arkansas). In those states, at least, intellectualism is considered (by a good portion of the population) as being backwards. Much of this comes down to a backlash against evolutionism and other scientific theories that contradict biblical teaching. This intellectual vacuum creates a society that values this elusive thing known as 'common sense'. Academics in their ivory towers don't really know anything, it's the guy with good old fashioned common sense who should be listened to.

What's fascinating about common sense is that it is often wrong. Perfectly wrong. I remember having this point driven home in a sociology class in college. We examined a ton of common sense statements (Such as a women is much safer at home than walking down a dark alley at night), statements that 'everyone' knows to be true, yet under scrutiny where actually incorrect. This fascinated me at the time, and it still does. It's had the net effect of making me rethink what common sense really is, and become MUCH more cynical about things that everyone knows. In short, I've become a true critical thinker.

I've found this epiphany frusturating. When someone throws something out and says 'it's just common sense' it's an argument killer. Since everyone knows that it is true, the argument is shut down. Facts mean very little to the argument as a whole.

Now to the point. Bush is a 'common sense' president. We heard throughout the 2000 campaign that he may not be extremely well educated, but he has the common sense a president needs to lead. To many (at least in the south) this message resonates because everyone knows that common sense is the most valuable form of knowledge (That's right, common sense VALIDATES common sense!). Thus, Bush must be the right man for the job.

It's impossible to argue the point, for the same reason common sense arguments are always impossible to argue with. A large segment of the population simply feels that knowledge not based on fact is the best kind of knowledge. I can accept that, it's part of living in a democracy. I still don't have to like it

NOTE: I have met a ton of people who fall into the category of valuing 'common sense' over intellectualism that are very smart people in their own right. They simply lack the education to understand the fallacy of their argument. They're not stupid, just missing a piece of the overall puzzle. So I take offense to the 'inbred hillbilly' comment.. because that's not who these people really are. For the most part they are people who have learned through experience... and experience on it's own doesn't always teach you the right lesson.

Which leads me to the Jimmy Carter comment. It's interesting you bring up Carter because he's not my ideal candidate because just like Bush he lacked some tools as well. Namely, experience. Throughout my posts on this thread you'll see a theme. I value the intellectual, the problem solver, and the critical thinker. These are valuable tools in almost any situation. However a thinker is only as effective as his experience allows him to be. Carter was aloof and people found him difficult to like. While he was a intellectual president, he was not a leader. He didn't have the basis of experience needed to BE a leader.

That's why I get behind people like McCain. He's an intellectual, likeable, experienced in politics, and has the credibility of being a true war hero. He has the tools a president needs and the experience to make them count. Bush lacks both the experience and the intellectual credibility I look for in a candidate. Kerry lacks the personality and leadership qualities I look for in a president. I still vote for Kerry, because I'd rather have an unlikable president that can run a steady ship rather than a likeable one that consistently makes the wrong decision.

In the most true sense of the word, I willfully retract the hillbilly statement in regard to your well thought interpretation. The resource that is critical thinking, affords a person considerable room for error, in my book. It is the intellectually lazy and dishonest that I truly despise. With that being said, I can not say that I, myself, am not guilty of said undesireable trait.

We all are.

It is those that subscribe to this method of interpretation as a way of life, that I truly despise. The common sense train of thought is fallacy in and of itself, that much is clear. To label you as one in the same, based on your geographical locale, was not my intent and again, I retract anything that may have been interpreted as indicating such.

People who have not been gifted the certain pieces of the puzzle, moreover, the techniques in which ways of effectively interpreting and solving problems are most useful, have not passed under my radar, so to speak. I am entirely aware of this fact. I grew up in an isolated, secular religous society, considerably much the same as the region that you indicated. The same type of unitellectual thought processes dominate the collective consciousness of the region that I was raised.

The most basic truth of the matter has to be that smart and truth seeking people, will not have their thought process controlled willingly but, will seek out ways of interpretation and thought processes that will bring them closer to what the truth may be.

[RunByDesign]

P.S. Just for the sake of argument, I never said anything about Jimmy Carter.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Nick C.]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

...not to mention that Americans wearing Kerry T-shirts who dared to attend a Bush rally have literally been arrested.

that has really happend? could you give me a source on that?

Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure.
Helen Keller (1880 - 1968)

Security is a kind of death.
Tennessee Williams (1911 - 1983)
- More quotations on: [Security]

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963), speech at Vanderbilt University, May 18, 1963
True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
- More quotations on: [Freedom]

The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.
William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)
- More quotations on: [Freedom] [Power]

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by enjolras

...
What's fascinating about common sense is that it is often wrong. Perfectly wrong. I remember having this point driven home in a sociology class in college. We examined a ton of common sense statements (Such as a women is much safer at home than walking down a dark alley at night), statements that 'everyone' knows to be true, yet under scrutiny where actually incorrect. This fascinated me at the time, and it still does....

I'm interested in how your class went about disproving this particular common sense statement. As a critical thinker, I'm skeptical.

Originally Posted by enjolras

...

Which leads me to the Jimmy Carter comment. It's interesting you bring up Carter because he's not my ideal candidate because just like Bush he lacked some tools as well. Namely, experience. Throughout my posts on this thread you'll see a theme. I value the intellectual, the problem solver, and the critical thinker. These are valuable tools in almost any situation. However a thinker is only as effective as his experience allows him to be. Carter was aloof and people found him difficult to like. While he was a intellectual president, he was not a leader. He didn't have the basis of experience needed to BE a leader.

That's why I get behind people like McCain. He's an intellectual, likeable, experienced in politics, and has the credibility of being a true war hero. He has the tools a president needs and the experience to make them count. Bush lacks both the experience and the intellectual credibility I look for in a candidate. Kerry lacks the personality and leadership qualities I look for in a president. I still vote for Kerry, because I'd rather have an unlikable president that can run a steady ship rather than a likeable one that consistently makes the wrong decision.

I'm sure he's not your ideal candidate NOW, because with the benefit of hindsight we all know he was a pretty underwhelming president (some of us would say failure, but that might not be completely fair to the guy). But if you were applying your criteria at the time, Jimmy Carter would fit your description pretty well IMO. Contrary to your belief, Carter had plenty of experience, including leadership experience. He was a governor, a successful businessman, a naval officer, and a nuclear engineer. He was also plenty likeable as far as the voters could tell. And I don't think there was any sense of him being aloof or hard to like until he became something of a failed president. His micromanagement style annoyed some of the people who worked for him, but you said you wanted a detail oriented guy (not that these two characteristics always go hand in hand of course).

Where did you get the idea that McCain is an intellectual? I don't know that he's not, I'm just curious what leads you to this conclusion. He is a good politician though.

Bush lacks experience? He's was a governor of one of the largest states in the country and he's been President of the United States for four of the most tumultuous years of our recent history. What experience do you think he is missing?