Originally Posted By Beaumandy Seems to me the people who were against this deal are now having to admit they reacted without getting all the facts... typical when Bush is involved.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Seems to me the people who were against this deal are now having to admit they reacted without getting all the facts... << Hey, Beau, there's a call for you on the irony phone over in the sex offenders thread.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Seems to me the people who were against this deal are now having to admit they reacted without getting all the facts... " More like people wanted to get all the facts in order to make a more informed decision.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 All people were upset about was the lack of facts and this deal just being "sprung" on the American public. People just want to know more about what's going on...especially with national security.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy When this thread started in all it's hysteria, I said people were not presenting the facts yet making knee jerk reactions... We even had this response to the port deal by STPH in the first 10 posts. <<Sheer idiocy.>> Why was it sheer idiocy then but becoming OK now? Maybe people see what they want to see and don't let the facts get in the way. Turns out Rush was right on this... once again.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I think things like this always happen when people are surprised with something. People react, it's natural. You've done it based on little facts as well. It may not be the right thing, but people just saw a red flag when this deal was announced. It's always better to make a decision when you can look at all the facts, and I think people were just amazed that something like this would fly under the radar without being discussed at length.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Why was it sheer idiocy then but becoming OK now?" If you're able to complete a thought you'd realize it was sheer idiocy to okay it without knowing more. That's all any of us have ever said. With what's at stake even you should realize that.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << If you're able to complete a thought you'd realize it was sheer idiocy to okay it without knowing more. >> Before this thread even started Condi Rice and Rummy said the program was very safe and a good deal. In other words, the people who actually are in charge of national security knew what they needed to know all along. The liberal, anti Bush media are the ones who put the gullible people into a panic by only presenting part of the story and misleading the public. Rush had it figured out on day one and now he is being proved right once again. This is why Rush is number one and CBS is running around with BOGUS National guard docs and rigged poll numbers.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon ^^STPH^^If you're able to complete a thought you'd realize it was sheer idiocy to okay it without knowing more. That's all any of us have ever said. With what's at stake even you should realize that. Beau seems to be able to complete thoughts just fine to me. But you also think Bush is "mentally challenged" based on his oratory skills. Beau has made excellent argument here. I dont expect you to say sorry or anything but the cheap shots seem inappropriate.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "But you also think Bush is "mentally challenged" based on his oratory skills." Of course I didn't say I based my opinion it solely on that but apparently that's all you choose to see.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon I never used the word solely. I read your post and understand you based your opinion on his performance in a series of debates. His reactions and inability to seemingly "win" the arguments in front of literally millions of viewers. You said it made no difference that he holds degrees from harvard and yale. Nor that he flew jets in the military. The fact that he was the only Texas Governor in history re-elected 2 consecutive times just reflects some kind of lucky fluke or else the voters are just stupid. Passholder, you essentially convey that believe Bush is some kind of dim witted dolt. Dictionary.com defines: dolt n : a person who is not very bright; "The economy, stupid!" dimwit n : a stupid incompetent person Do you actually believe George Bush jr. is of diminished mental capacity? I ask this question with total seriousness.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Do you actually believe George Bush jr. is of diminished mental capacity?" Never put it that way. Ask me something that doesn't put words in my mouth.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon OK Im sorry. I am misunderstanding you. Obviously my fault. What did you mean when you said Bush was stupid and mentally challenged?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I said, and I quote, since you refuse to look it up- I truly believe Bush is one of the most intellectually challenged Presidents we've ever had, and I'm not saying that just to be contrary. I base this on my observations of the man in public, especially when he has to speak extemporaneously. While there are many people who are intelligent but can't articuate very well, Bush does not present that self to me whatsoever. He's got some core values, and he relies om his advisors to tell him what to do in line with them. There's no way anyone can tell me in a room filled with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove and Bush our President is the brightest bulb there. Likely, it goes in the order I listed.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder If you find "stupid" and "mentally challenged" there, I can't help you.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon I stand corrected. I actually looked but couldnt find the post. (looks like I am the mentally challenged one here) Im guessing you have called Bush stupid in the past here in the over 5000 posts you have contributed but if you say you havnt who am I to argue? "intelectually challenged" was the phrase. Thank you. Dictionary.com defines the following: in·tel·lect n. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind. A person of great intellectual ability. chal·lenged adj. Having a disability or impairment. Deficient or lacking: an ethically challenged politician. *Usage Note: People who object to the terms disabled and handicapped as being too negative sometimes propose the substitution of challenged instead, as in referring to persons with physical disabilities as physically challenged. While this particular phrase is quite popular, it is sometimes taken to be condescending, and similar usages such as mentally challenged have failed to win equal acceptance. Indeed, the widespread parody of challenged in such expressions as electronically challenged for “inept at using computers†has effectively eliminated it as an all-purpose alternative to disabled or handicapped. Well then? Do you actually find the man "intelectually challenged"? Or is it you just hate his politics and maybe the man himself and said that because of personal feelings? You are not alone by the way. I notice a great many self proclaimed liberals taking cheap shots at the Commander in Chief such as "sock puppet", "chimp", "corporate sock puppet" the list is endless. I dont really think you will answer this question. Its ok.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder If you ranked the Presidents for their intellect, my opinion is Bush would be very near the bottom. Happy?
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon STPH: If you ranked the Presidents for their intellect, my opinion is Bush would be very near the bottom. Happy? So you actually dont find the man "intelectually challenged" by definition? Only if is is in strict comparisionto past Presidents?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I'm not going to keep playing this game. What part of "Bush is one of the most intellectually challenged Presidents we've ever had" does NOT suggest to you this is anything but being compared to other Presidents? Here's a question for you. Why do you care that I consider Bush intellectually challenged compared to other Presidents? I'll take your answer off the air.
