Bush Voters Have Lower IQs

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

Anyway everyone. We may not have agreed with our views, but this was a fun debate except for the occasional flaming which comes with any debate. I have been in this forum for hours now. HAHA, I gotta get going. I am tired and I got a lot of stuff to do in a few hours. It was fun debating with you all. Have fun....until next time.

SBacklin =)

[supernova_00]

later...i gotta get some sleep also, about 4am here

[John S. Veteran]

"I don't want or need to look to what a candidate can "do for me". That's a rather narrow-sighted view, I'd much rather vote for someone with the intestinal fortitude to stand up for something and stick by his word."

He should stand by his word even if its wrong? If you did something wrong aren't you suppose to admit it. Thats what I was taught.

Exactly, just as Kerry did when he admitted before the world to war crimes. :laugh: But yeah, you totally missed the point. I'm not voting to re-elect Bush thinking about what he can do for me. I'm voting for him because I believe him to be a man of values and principles that I share.

FYI: the button is a marvelous item that will let users know you're actually addressing them. ;) Welcome to Neowin.

[Partial]

I admire Kerry for serving in Vietnam because if it was me I wouldn't go to war. As for the war crime, I remember he was talking about what he saw not what he did. Anyway, in war ugly things happen. Like the war in iraq. Of course its inexcusable but people shouldn't be too shocked about it. I don't know if things he said he saw happened or not and its been awhile since the Vietnam war.

Most people vote for who they can identify with. If you can identify with a candidate, then you would think that candidate would better represent you and work for you because of the shared values. So the two factors are in fact connected. I actually mentioned that some people voted for Bush because he appeared to have morals in the first election in my first post on this topic.

Thanks for the button, I've seen it before, but I don't bother with it because I usually don't like to post. It should be useful in these kind of posts though.

Edited August 23, 2004 by Partial

[John S. Veteran]

I admire Kerry for serving in Vietnam because if it was me I wouldn't go to war. As for the war crime, I remember he was talking about what he saw not what he did. Anyway, in war ugly things happen. Like the war in iraq. Of course its inexcusable but people shouldn't be too shocked about it. I don't know if things he said he saw happened or not and its been awhile since the Vietnam war.

Most people vote for who they can identify with. If you can identify with a candidate, then you would think that candidate would better represent you and work for you because of the shared values. So the two factors are in fact connected. I actually mentioned that some people voted for Bush because he appeared to have morals in the first election in my first post on this topic.

Thanks for the button, I've seen it before, but I don't bother with it because I usually don't like to post. It should be useful in these kind of posts though.

He actually was admitting to war crimes in his testimony before Congress. The video is all over the net:

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages.

John Kerry April 18, 1971

[Partial]

KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages.

That doesn't seem as serious as what happened in Iraq. Firing on villages happened because the Vietnam war was a very nasty war. Everyone and anyone could be carrying a gun or a grenade, yes even the women, the elderly, and the teens. You just don't know. Remember Vietnam is full of dense forests and hills unlike Iraq. The American soldiers that got sent in were really young, 18-22 I believe barely finished with boot camp and they get shipped off into a hell hole. The Vietnamese hid in underground holes and when the Americans walk pass by they come out of the holes and shoot up the Americans from behind. There were no tanks because of the forests. The traps they set were even worst. You die of a very slow and very painful death. How would you feel if you saw your friends get killed in such ways, wouldn't you want to get revenge? So its very believeable that some of the soldiers lost their cool. Even the military planners lost their cool I believe and that started the carpet bombings. Thats why I would not want to go to war. Because in war its kill or be killed and a lot of times you can't tell whos friend or foe. Soldiers are trained to kill and not to police.

Edited August 23, 2004 by Partial

[+thexfile Subscriber²]

Pro-Bush posters on a Anti-Bush thread flaming everybody... :x

[Aaron Veteran]

Never mind

[deadzombie]

Frankly, I think politicans want people to be not very well educated or to put trust in them so they can manipulate the people to see things their way.

If you listen to Bush talk, you can tell he's not very wise.

If you listen to President Bush speak publicly, what you can tell is that he has difficulties making presentations to large crowds. This is not uncommon, as over 90% of people that make speeches in front of large groups of people have difficulty, experiencing physical symptoms ranging from anxiety to nausea. The ability to make presentations to a large group has nothing to do with intelligence or IQ, but is a genetic trait that some people have and most people don't. In a world where we are used to polished TV news anchors and slick politicians it's easy to overlook that many of these people fall into the 10% that can make presentations.

Listen to President Bush in his rare one on one talks with people. These are hard to find, but if you do you will find he speaks much clearer, alot more relaxed and at ease. Bush was very popular as Governor of Texas because he actually brought Democrats and Republicans together, after years of partisan bickering under Governor Ann "Big hair" Richards.

As for his wisdom, who are we to question it? He is obviously wise enough to gain the Presidential seat in the most powerful country in that has ever existed, by whatever means. Im not certain if anyone here has the credentials to point fingers and pass judgement on him.

[Partial]

If your the president you should be able to speak eloquently, after all he represent America. If your talking about his personal interview, yes, he seem more better at it. But I'm sure his aids already told him how to handle it. Its when he get questioned by the media thats when Bush shows his deficiencies.

Questionably gained the presidency or barely gained the presidency. The recount was a joke. The Bush camp bused a bunch of his supporters to the recount places and cause so much of disturbances (in term of noises) that they had to stop the recount. Also what about Bush taking more vacation time in the first few years of the presidency than any other president. During this time, I remembered I was wondering where Bush was. I mean all I saw was Dick Cheney this Dick Cheney that. The president was MIA.

[Djmutik1013]

If your the president you should be able to speak eloquently, after all he represent America. If your talking about his personal interview, yes, he seem more better at it. But I'm sure his aids already told him how to handle it. Its when he get questioned by the media thats when Bush shows his deficiencies.

Questionably gained the presidency or barely gained the presidency. The recount was a joke. The Bush camp bused a bunch of his supporters to the recount places and cause so much of disturbances (in term of noises) that they had to stop the recount. Also what about Bush taking more vacation time in the first few years of the presidency than any other president. During this time, I remembered I was wondering where Bush was. I mean all I saw was Dick Cheney this Dick Cheney that. The president was MIA.

Where did you get your info on this? I'd like to know

[purush]

I just finished reading the entire posts. The literrary award for the best posts goes to SBacklin, for his informative, thougt provoking and in depth knowledge of Political Science. His arguments are eloquent and embelished with some very serious comments. He is thorough in his edicts. He is remarkably farsighted and amicably frank in his expressions. I think he would have been the right candidate for the President.

[Partial]

In Bush's first 8 months of presidency, he was on vacation according to the Washington Post 42% of the time. I watch a lot of news. I clearly remembered when all I saw on news channels such as msnbc or fox news was Dick Cheney. I was thinking why not just have Dick Cheney be the president, he seem to be doing all the work. As for the busing his supporters to disrupt the recount, I learned that in my university sociology class. I have no reason to doubt that because if I was in Bush's position I would have done the same.

Going back to economic recovery. I have to say, its thanks to the great housing market. Due to the low interest rate a lot more Americans are owning homes these days. When you own a home you have to furnish it. This is giving the American economy a great boost. But when the interest rate goes up. Lets hope the other sectors of the economy will pick up.

Edited August 23, 2004 by Partial

[deadzombie]

I just finished reading the entire posts. The literrary award for the best posts goes to SBacklin, for his informative, thougt provoking and in depth knowledge of Political Science. His arguments are eloquent and embelished with some very serious comments. He is thorough in his edicts. He is remarkably farsighted and amicably frank in his expressions. I think he would have been the right candidate for the President.

:trout:

[+thexfile Subscriber²]

I just finished reading the entire posts.  The literrary award for the best posts goes to SBacklin, for his informative, thougt provoking and in depth knowledge of Political Science. His arguments are eloquent and embelished with some very serious comments. He is thorough in his edicts. He is remarkably farsighted and amicably frank in his expressions. I think he would have been the right candidate for the President.

I believe SBacklin would say your not adding anything to the debate/flame...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I'm guessing :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[+Steve B Subscriber²]

LOL, No I wouldn't because I been done with this issue already. I went to new ones that have come up.

[tktino]

Very true. Thats why nyc has more jobs. We know how to make money

[John S. Veteran]

ahh, he is Roman Catholic... and if he were Jewish, what would that have to do with anything?

:whistle:

Even the best friends of Senator John Forbes Kerry, a practicing Catholic from Massachusetts (the state which contains America?s largest Irish Catholic population), thought of him as an American Irish Catholic through and through.

The discovery of Kerry?s European Jewish roots has surprised many people, including the senator himself.

link

Now back to topic, yes it's a dusty old hoax:

www.museumofhoaxes.com

[pacifica]

really?