Everyone should visit Damian's blog and take a look at the e-mail that he got from anti-Jewish Maryland legislature candidate Bill White.

It's frightening.

Don't misunderstand my sign -- I really don't like Jews, or at least most of them. There are some exceptions, but usually in spite of the Jewishness. At least enough of the County agrees with me to keep voting for me. ;-D

I hate to suggest this, but...you don't suppose the misspelling & the word invention were done on purpose, as jokes? If so, it isn't a good idea to be making fun of them.

Mmm, I think these two yo-yos are making a lame attempt at irony. OTOH, it's often quite hard to tell for sure.

Yeah, I think they were going for subliminable humor.

What subtle strategery!

Remember, folks, these are the anti-anti-terrorists. White supremacists, "anti-Zionists", and blatant antisemites teaming up with the anti-globalists, anti-capitalists, and the Islamists to form a great big glob of malevolent, violent stupidity.

Well, it may be irony. But seeing how the anti-globo bozos write and spell over on Indymedia, somehow I doubt it.

Ah! I get it now... they're holding pretzels... with "ENRON" written on them... President Bush choked on a pretzel...

These people are deep, thoughtful, full of ironicismness.

I'll bet they even speak French poorly.

Can you really come up with a better tagline than the one the guy already has on his sign?

Damian credits these two as being associated with MENSA. The streak continues - I still have yet to meet a confirmed MENSA member that wasn't apparently bright, but also apparently lacked the slightest bit of common sense about practical matters. I may have met some MENSA members with common sense, but I'm guessing that it came into play when they considered advertising the fact.

My favorite game is Stratego!

Seriously, I think these fools are engaging in deliberative error-mongering in an attempt to belittle the office of the Presiduncy uv the United States of Um-air-ick-uh!

"We resignate" - would be a typical Bushism.

The "how dumb" is of course another refrence to W.

Add in the pretzel reference (that one would have gone by me) and I think you have a crew with a message. 2/3s of which is probably too subtle for the 3 seconds they might get on the evening news.

Otherwise a very class act even though I disagree with the whole premise.

Team Bleah's take was that they didn't intend to use "to" instead of "too". Given how many people mangle that homophone in normal writing, I wouldn't be surprised.

Ohhh, now I get it. Must be why I've always thought the Mensa crowd was a bunch of intelligently blithering scatterbrains...I was missing the subtlety of it all...color me the rube!

M. Simon...

Let me break this down for you. We were not poking fun at "How dumb", but the phrase "How dumb is to dumb."

Believe me, there is a grammatical error in there somewhere. Perhaps with the aid of this clue you can find it.

I went to a MENSA meeting for prospective members many years ago. My main impression was that they were really boring and not as smart as my friends.

Hey, Ernie G. Are you really one of the two protestors in that picture?

In my experience, MENSA members generally fall into one of two categories:

1) These people are very impressed by the fact that they qualified for membership through a subjective measurement of an impossible-to-define characteristic (intelligence). Within a short period of time everyone they encounter knows they are in MENSA. The very fact that they are Mensans automatically certifies them as experts on any subject.

2) These people join the organization to expand their knowledge by interacting and discussing issues and ideas with others who have been deemed highly intelligent. They understand that intelligent people can honestly disagree on certain issues.

Normally, 1's are the most vocal members and tend to dominate any gathering by drowning out all who disagree with them. Eventually their overbearing behavior chases away most of the 2's. My guess is that these people are 1's.

Um...they're not really in Mensa, guys. At least, not to my knowledge. I just thought it would be funny.

they're of course being ironical. the missed spellings on there signs are a referrending to our pResident. it's humoresque!

one of my best friends in the 80's turned out to be a member of mensa. i liked him a lot (still do), but he always seemed to be just a little step behind everyone else.

but, i don't think george w. is a mensa member...is he?

Mensa always seemed to me like a nerdier version of a Star Trek convention.

I don't know which is funnier--the signs, or the people who didn't instantly catch on to the fact that the errors were part of the joke.

Too damn funny.

Which isn't to say these folks are comic geniuses--the pretzel image just doesn't work at all. It's topical, I suppose, but it doesn't evoke an embarassing incident--anyone can choke on food, and pretzels are pretty ordinary fare.

Contrast this with, say, an anti-Clinton demonstrator waving a large cigar. Now there's an image with some power. Like the pretzel, it's topical, but quite unlike the pretzel, it's associated with an incident that demonstrates poor judgement, so it's an effective instrument of mockery.

How is intelligence impossible to define? I think it's like the famous definition of obscenity - I know it when I see it. Or, better, I know it when I don't see it.

I caught that error.

I thought it was part of the joke.

Ian, LGF commenter, posted this on his web log along with the picture and attributed it to the Denver Post:

A picture of Saffer and Josephine Silla of Fort Lee, N.J., appeared in Wednesday's Post showing the two protesting President George W. Bush.

[Link: www.fiercehighway.com...]

So I guess it's not "Ernie G." in the photo.

Ooops, Damien mentions that the Mensa reference was just a joke.

Guess we were wrong all along to do the Mensa venting. I feel bad. Really.

C'mon, really! I have this overwhelming urge to say 'sorry Mrs. Lubner...'

How dumb is to dumb? Gordumb.

Neve Gordumb.

off the wall link John. Looks like Neve is a poli-sci professor. I've often found that translates to 'blind to forest due to excessive trees'

Hey, Pejman Y. is a Mensa guy and he's obviously a very bright man, so I'm not going to dump on Mensa. What interests me is that if you took out the pretzel reference, it could be a photo of Reagan protesters in the '80's. The same jokes I heard (and told - I was a Democrat then) about Reagan are now being recycled for the Bush years, just like old Polish jokes are now blonde jokes. The Left really needs to develop a new schtick besides Reagan-Quayle-Bush are dumb. Well,..., I guess Quayle really was dumb.

I like to consider myself an amateur historian, based on the fact that I voraciously read history. I think that sort of makes me "an intellectual". I can almost guarantee that I've read a lot more than Bush, and I wouldn't be surprised if my actual IQ tested higher than his... and Reagan's. I think Clinton could probably say the same thing.

Which leads me to one the greatest absolute mysteries of the world that I simply do not get.

Why is it that really really smart people get politcs so CATASTROPHICALLY wrong...again and again and again and again? I mean, doesn't the scientific method count for anything? You know, you come up with a theory like, for instance, 'socialism / statism works and is a great thing', and then you try it out and you WRITE DOWN what works and what doesn't, and adjust your theory accordingly. Is this such a difficult concept? Why is it that your typical fireman and farmer can get it quite clearly, but our college professors, grad students and apparently MENSA types seem to miss the boat entirely? Does what ACTUALLY HAPPENED with statist thinking and implementation in the 20th Century hold any relevance here? Them yee haw woodcuttin' cowboys Reagan and Bush get it quite well, thanks, while all these brilliant thinkers continue to tell us all that, yes, two plus two DOES equal five, just keeping adding them over and over and over and one day it's gonna happen.

I've been trying to figure this questions out for a couple decades now. Haven't even come close to getting it.

No griping about typos. Fast writing.

;-)

"off the wall link John."

True. Neve was just the first idiot I could think of with that last name.

To dumb ---an intellectual waste of time responding to something too dumb to be of any importance.

To dumb is to become numb to the real issues.

Like baby-wipes. Maybe Arafat has assteroids and Preperation-H(amas) doesn't work to well.

Surely the problem with intellectuals apparently getting politics wrong is that they become smart enough to spot how and why the current system is wrong, and as a result become so stringently opposed to the current system that they end totally enamoured with the opposite and unable to fathom that that system is equally wrong (so, intellectuals growing up in capitalist systems spot the massive flaws in capitalism, but fall so deeply in love with the idea of socialism as a way out of the capitalist mire that they fail to see the flaws in socialism - and vice versa). That's what happens in the UK, anyway. Swing and roundabouts - just as intellecutals who grew-up Britian during the post-war era came to blindly hate socialism, future intellectuals currently growing up in the midst of this neo-Victorian, sort of extremist capitalist Britain, where socialists are denied and kind of voice, and witnessing it's massive flaws, is going to go socialist, so we'll get a new round of nationalisations and short-term improvements in about twenty years, and then forty years after that we'll be back to how it is now.

Andrew-

Think that these super-smart folks just overthink the problems? Or is practicality the issue?

A farmer or a fireman is confronted every day by absolutes. Does corn grow here? Is that building on fire? Simple, right? Not always, but they seem to get the job done.

Scholars, however, have long ago left absolute answers in the dust.

Just a (probably wrong) thought. Most of the time there's a lot to be said for being a simple prole. And for surrounding yourself with smart people who can find solutions and discarding those (Mona Baker) who can't.

Andrew X said:

"Why is it that really really smart people get politcs so CATASTROPHICALLY wrong...again and again and again and again? I mean, doesn't the scientific method count for anything? You know, you come up with a theory like, for instance, 'socialism / statism works and is a great thing', and then you try it out and you WRITE DOWN what works and what doesn't, and adjust your theory accordingly. Is this such a difficult concept? Why is it that your typical fireman and farmer can get it quite clearly, but our college professors, grad students and apparently MENSA types seem to miss the boat entirely? Does what ACTUALLY HAPPENED with statist thinking and implementation in the 20th Century hold any relevance here? Them yee haw woodcuttin' cowboys Reagan and Bush get it quite well, thanks, while all these brilliant thinkers continue to tell us all that, yes, two plus two DOES equal five, just keeping adding them over and over and over and one day it's gonna happen."

Andrew,

You are assuming that these "intelligent" people actually believe in socialism. What the likes of Clinton and other leftists believe in is the quest for total power. Socialism is really just totalitarianism all prettied up. It is the purest embodiment of the old cliche, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." These people are intelligent; they know that socialism doesn't work because it was never supposed to work. It was never supposed to alleviate suffering or bring a utopia on earth. It always accomplishes it's goal of giving power to a select few ruthless enough to step all over the competition to get to the top. It is simply a lie from the pit of Hell.

As for the dumb cowboys, they're not only intelligent but honest, in that they really thought the policies they introduced or the statements they made would help improve humanity, and this is borne out by the fact that the "cowboys" are so frequently right. Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire, and it was, and it eventually fell. Bush II has called Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "Axis of Evil," and it is (unfortunately the Axis of Evil is missing a few countries, notably Saudi Arabia), and the Axis will fall in the not too distant future. Are Reagan and Bush perfect? No, but I believe that whatever mistakes they made/make, and whatever short term concessions they make in service of their overall agenda, they still fundamentally believe in policies they promote, like limited government, lower regulation and taxation, and greater personal freedom. I think the places where men like Reagan and Bush II go wrong are the instances when their actions don't fully live up to their beliefs, not when the beliefs themselves are wrong.

Excellent Brandi, excellent!

Brandi in AZ

Canada has a social health care system. It's far from totalitarian. In fact a recent US study between paid for hospitals and not paid for hospitals showed that MORE people died in the private paid for hospitals. The article suggested looking at the Canadian system where you can see any doctor you want, walk into any clinic you want, any hospital you want and receive decent "socialist" health care.

Not everything socialist has to be labeled communist or totalitarian. There's a huge difference most Americans don't seem get.

The cold war did a real number on you guys.

Now with the supposed war on terror, Pentagon officials are again scared shitless, we need stronger, faster, billion dollar weapon systems. After all, we're fighting men with kalishnakoffs and our weaponry is outdated.

Who gives a damn about the 40 million Americans who can't afford and so never see a doctor, lets build bombers worth 2 billion a piece.

Bossman -

Being able to see a Canadian doctor any time I please does me little good when there's a limited list of drugs they're allowed to prescribe to me, and a limited list of treatments they're allowed to perform.

Look at England for another model of socialized medicine... they just came out with a recommendation that someone suffering from a disease resulting in eventual blindness shouldn't be treated for it by the state until he's gone blind in at least one eye. Oh, what a comfort... but at least everyone in England can afford the same shitty health care.

... shitty health care that is surprisingly like military health care. Socialized medicine exists in the US armed services, and as a result, they have doctors who misdiagnose shingles as poison ivy, who can't even draw blood properly, and an up to five hour wait for emergency care.

In a choice between paying for health care that I choose, or putting up with the scraps that my government chooses to provide me, I'll suck it up and pay for it.

But that's my attitude when it comes to any government service, which is why I'm not a socialist.

Yo Bossman -

Love that "Cold War really did a number on you guys". Uh, huh. Stalin murders 21.5 million of his own people (source: Dmitiri Volgonikov, former Chief Historian of the Red Army, top that for cred.) and that's what "did a number on us".

While much of Europe could be called "socialist" without being totalitarian, the questions are A) Does it REALLY work and B) Are it's supporters being genuinely honest in applying the scientific method to assessing it?

Scandinavia has been sold as a model for some time, and now we see that report around the blogosphere that the average Swede is materially worse off than the average African-American. Meanwhile Denmark tacks hard right as the deadly combination of the stagnation caused by statism mixes with unfettered immigration.

I'm not even championing "free market values" (not here at least) as much as pointing out how bizarre it is that these so called brilliant thinkers apply a methodology to politics that they themselves would laugh me out of the room if I applied it to, say, physics, or dare I say it, religion. "Here's the theory, we KNOW it MUST work somehow, it must, it must, it MUST!" And immediately discard any and all evidence, of which there is a ton, that says different. It's just a very bizarre thing for intelligent people to do. Brandi explains it by saying that they are just power hogs who know exactly what they are doing, simple as that.
I'm not sure I buy that, but I don't have anything better at the moment.

Regarding Bossman's reference to a study showing that more patients die in paid-for healthcare facilities (hereinafter "Private") than in not-paid-for facilities (hereinafter "Public") , I must point out that this statistic, alone, is meaningless.

Possible questions, the answers to which I do not have but which may well shed new light on the issue if answered, are:
1. Are Public hospitals more likely to discharge a patient so that she may die in the comfort of her own home (or with dignity, or whatever)?
2. Are private hospitals more likely to receive the difficult cases, because the patient hopes that a more agressive treatment may be available, even if that treatment ultimately fails?
3. Similarly, are private facilities more likely to treat, or attempt to treat, terminal illnesses, while public facilities are unwilling, or unable, to provide similar care?
4. Would a study of survival rates 5 days after discharge from both types of facilites show a similar trend as the one Bossman proffers?

There are of course many other questions which may or may not lend further support to the study to which Bossman turns, or they may well cause the study's results to be absolutely meaningless.

Anticdotally, although I am not aware of public hospitals turning patients out because of their medical condition, I have witnessed the penal system release petty criminals so that the county housing the inmate was not responsible for the medical care required. Further, I personally had a client who was denied such basic medical care that she lost her baby while awaiting trial. (Until sentencing, a prisoner is the responsibility of the county or municipality from which she was arested. After sentencing, medical care becomes the responsibility of the state.) This was done despite a court order that she be transported to and from regular ob/gyn appointments. Unfortunately, I left private practice very soon after, and I do not know if civil action was ever taken on her behalf. I do know that she pled guilty to agrevated assault (assault with a weapon) and was sentenced to five years, two suspended.

Regarding Leftists and the purported desire for unmitigated power.

Here is a thought experiement: suppose that you could give Leftists a truth serum that would cause them to tell the full, unexpurgated Truth about anything. Then suppose you asked truth-serumed leftists why they believe in the political policies and programs in which they believe. Do YOU believe they would say that it's because they want unlimited power and control?

I don't think they would say such a thing, even under truth serum because, however wrong Leftists and their ilk and their cronies may be, they don't just want control of some world government.

Come on! I mean, really.

Lothario -

I think it depends on which leftists you're asking. Sure, I highly doubt that your average greenie punk holding down a minimum wage job is going to say he supports public education because he wants to rule the world with an iron fist...

...but I wouldn't be too shocked if I heard that from Daschle or Clinton or Gore.

The fact that most proponents of leftist ideology don't even practice what they preach:
- take a look at the percentage of Senate and House members who put their kids in private schools (see A Lesson In Hypocricy.)
- or remember the civil rights suit some of the blacks in the secret service brought against then VP Gore for racial discrimination
- or laugh while McAuliffe rants about shady investing deals, considering his connections to global crossing
- or the accountants they hire to help them out with their tax shelters and inheritance tax avoidance schemes...

things like this make it apparent to me that socialists don't believe in their cause, and use it as a smokescreen for their true goal: control over my country.

I am a conservative. I think Leftists are wrong. But Tom Daschle and Bill Clinton and, yes, even Hillary Clinton are not interested in control over the United States any more than we conservatives want control over the United States (in order to effectuate the politicies we think are the best ones).

And being a hypocrite does not make you an Evil Person who Wants to Rule with an Iron Fist.

Sure, it's fun to ascribe utter evil and secret-plots-to-control-the-world to people you disagree with, but it actually hurts the debate and it makes the possibility of a workable solution that much less likely.

Here is the best advice I ever got in this regard (from an amazing law professor): People on the other side of a political issue, wrong as they may be, have come to their positions reasonably and sensibly, unless they are permanently or temporaily insane.

Wahhabi Arabs may very well be temporarily -- perhaps permanently -- insane but American nutball left-liberal people are not. They are just silly and wrong.

Lothario -

You say "And being a hypocrite does not make you an Evil Person who Wants to Rule with an Iron Fist."

True, but being a hypocrite does indicate that you don't actually believe in the positions you advocate, which makes me think there is an underlying motive for advocating them.

When republicans call for across the board tax cuts, I believe they want these tax cuts, and believe republicans think that they make sound policy, because you don't see any republicans trying to raise their own taxes. When democrats denounce school choice, but send their own children to private school, I believe they don't really want school choice, they want to keep inner city and poor children out of their nice, exclusive private schools.

You also say "People on the other side of a political issue, wrong as they may be, have come to their positions reasonably and sensibly, unless they are permanently or temporaily insane."

This is untrue on its face. Plenty of people will publicly espouse popular political positions without believing in them also because they are *drum roll please* expedient. I know I'm not the only person in or out of office who has ever read Machiavelli.

People lie about what they believe in. Even, shocking as it may be, politicians.

I think someone ought to point out that the protestors are vastly smarter than the man they're ridiculing. George W. Bush is an ignorant asshole, and it never hurts to remember that from time to time.

You know when someone uses "vastly" in a sentence describing the intelligence of people wielding Enron pretzels, it means they really know what they're talking about.

Really. All this crap about Bush being dumb is really tiresome. How about something more inventive? If you find yourself needing public displays of bad manners in lieu of a Post-It note, though, please be our guest. But realize it means something uncommentary about YOU. Criticism of the President based on what you THINK his intelligence might be tends to carry a lot less weight than criticism of the President based on something he did.

Based on Clinton's public speaking ability, I'll take a guy who trips over his own tongue saying "excuse me" over a smooth-talking liar. But that's just me. Opinions may vary. That's democracy!

Drat. "uncomplimentary", not "uncommentary". And the last line should have been "That's freedom, isn't it?", which would have me plagiarizing two different SciFi stories in one comment. Double drat.

'Some Guy' likes to point out that "the protesters are smarter than Bush" etc.

News flash chief, we've been pursuing that thread here all along. You might try giving the board a quick read before you jump onto it.

I believe, and am perfectly willing to accept, that you may be right. (Though Bush got higher grades than Gore. Funny how most people assume the opposite. How could that possibly be, I wonder?) Nontheless, what is YOUR answer to the question on the table?
Why is it that so many smart people in the 20th Centrury (and beyond) can be so brilliant about so much, and get politics so idiotically wrong time and time again. (Ref posting #29 plus)

The Flaming Anus (VERY clever name, btw) wrote: "Based on Clinton's public speaking ability, I'll take a guy who trips over his own tongue saying 'excuse me' over a smooth-talking liar. But that's just me. Opinions may vary. That's democracy!"

Granted, at times Clinton did lie, most notably about a consensual sexual relationship between two adults. But Bush lies all the time, about matters great and small. I suppose next you'll argue that you'd rather be represented by an inarticulate moron simply because he's a non-Clinton. That's your call, but don't try to pretend that your guy is wise and honest simply because he hasn't read, say, 5% of the books that Clinton or Gore has read, and because he can't pronounce words that would pose no problem to a bright tenth-grader. "Mal-fee-ance," anyone?

Back it up, "Some Guy" boy. Back any of it up. Back up the assertion regarding number of books read. Back up assertions regarding Bush's intelligence. Just one iota of evidence is all I ask.

Wait. No. All I asked is that you quit flogging the friggin dead horse called "Bush is stupid" and come up with something substantial to say. But I guess it's too much to ask.

I can't take credit for the name. It's a character in a Spider Robinson short story, I believe. Oh! Hey! Since I have undoubtedly read several times as many books as Gore and Clinton put together, I'm a friggin' genius! Hooray! Plus I should be getting laid a lot more.

I'm with Fleming Ayniss here. Show me proof that Bush hasn't read 5% of the books that Clinton or Gore has read (not that being a prolific reader is any indicator of intelligence... or every Avon Romance club subscriber in the US is a fucking genius). Just list the number of lies Bush has told - I can think of one, just one, right now. Lets see if you can - and I will match you one documented Gore lie for every Bush lie you can produce.

I think it would be fun. But, like most trolls, Some Guy, I doubt you'll rise to the challenge of actually backing up your statements.

real help it does my cause when I can't even spell my own name right. duh.

I'm guessing that you're not interested in buying an "I'm with Ayniss" T-shirt, though.

...What the likes of Clinton and other leftists believe in is the quest for total power. Socialism is really just totalitarianism all prettied up...

Really Brandi, don't delude yourself that Bush and other rightists aren't as power-crazed as everybody else.

The Bush family is extremely well-connected. The whole point of these connections is to gain more money and more power. Go to Google and type in "neil bush silverado", "jeb bush hud medicare", and "prescott bush nazi". These people will do anything, and I do mean ANYTHING for more power.

Liberal programs that you call socialism or government/corporate fascism that is currently steamrolling the US: the end result is the same.

Anyiss wrote: "Back it up, "Some Guy" boy. Back any of it up. Back up the assertion regarding number of books read. Back up assertions regarding Bush's intelligence. Just one iota of evidence is all I ask."

Bush's lack of intelligence has been well-documented in the print and electronic media. I especially recommend Mark Crispin Miller's "The Bush Dyslexicon" (read the trade paperback edition, recently published, which contains material that did not appear in the 2001 hardcover edition) and Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?" Each of these books give dozens of examples of Bush's less-than-mediocre mind and lazy habits.

Then he wrote: "Wait. No. All I asked is that you quit flogging the friggin dead horse called 'Bush is stupid' and come up with something substantial to say. But I guess it's too much to ask."

You can ask me to stop mentioning Bush's stupidity until the cows come home, Ayniss, but it ain't gonna happen. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. I know it pains you to be reminded of it so much, but them's the breaks. People like you (well, people like you and Scalia and Thomas and the rest of the Gang of Five) put the guy in office, so people like you have to be reminded of the mistake you made by so doing.

Celsete, or possibly Celeste, wrote: "I'm with Fleming Ayniss here. Show me proof that Bush hasn't read 5% of the books that Clinton or Gore has read (not that being a prolific reader is any indicator of intelligence... or every Avon Romance club subscriber in the US is a fucking genius). Just list the number of lies Bush has told - I can think of one, just one, right now. Lets see if you can - and I will match you one documented Gore lie for every Bush lie you can produce.

"I think it would be fun. But, like most trolls, Some Guy, I doubt you'll rise to the challenge of actually backing up your statements."

Well, Celeste, I obviously cannot PROVE that Bush hasn't done a great deal of reading. MAYBE he goes home every night to a stack of books by Hume, Kant, Mailer, Cheever, and Dostoyevsky. But it doesn't seem very likely, now does it? When a guy can't make his way through a prepared speech without stumbling through it as though drunk, or when he can't answer questions at a press conference without betraying his utter ignorance about the subject at hand, you can sort of tell that you're not dealing with Constant Reader. You may be right that not all readers are intelligent, but surely nearly all intelligent people--at least the ones I've known--have been voracious readers.

You ask me to list Bush's lies. Jesus, woman, I haven't got time for that; I do hold a job, after all. But yeah, I can play the game of putting Bush's lies up against the ones you'll claim for Gore. To begin, I'll give you two related lies. When asked about Kenneth Lay a few months ago, when Enron was starting to make the papers, Bush said that he got to know Lay in 1994. This was a lie, as he worked with Lay in 1992 to try to get George 41 re-elected, and may have known him even before that, according to White House communications director Dan Bartlett. He then said that Lay was a supporter of Ann Richards when she ran against Dubya in the TX guv race, which was, as Lay himself admitted, an utter lie.

Ball's in your court, Celeste. And although I may be shorter than the average man (think Michael J. Fox without the boyish charm), I'm not a troll. Seriously.

"Some Guy" evidently believes that
the "Lovenstein Institute" "study" is real.

Of course, that raises that question of who really is more intelligent, Bush or "Some Guy".

Oh, "Some Guy" boy, you really crack me up. You equate public speaking skills with intelligence? And you cite the opinions of those ill-equipped to offer a credible assessment? Your "evidence" does not persuade.

Jimmy Carter, according to Democrats, is a friggin genius. Yet look at what he's saying regarding Cuba. Outside of missing rights of assembly and free speech (he doesn't even mention search and seizure and due process laws) Cuba is a civil rights paradise!

But I digress. I hereby modify my request as follows:

Please stop using the "Bush is a moron" as a placeholder for disapproval if you're too lazy or too stupid to come up with something of actual substance to disapprove of. It makes you look...knee-jerk.

But it's really ok with me if you want to keep doing it. It just serves as a reminder of how truly intellectually underfed some Left factions are.

John wrote:"'Some Guy' evidently believes that the 'Lovenstein Institute' 'study' is real.

Of course, that raises that question of who really is more intelligent, Bush or 'Some Guy.'"

Well, "John," if that IS your real name, you're putting words in my mouth. I never once cited that fraudulent document. There is ample real evidence of Bush's moronic ways, hence no need to make things up. But thanks for playing!

Ayniss wrote: "Oh, 'Some Guy' boy, you really crack me up. You equate public speaking skills with intelligence? And you cite the opinions of those ill-equipped to offer a credible assessment? Your 'evidence' does not persuade."

I daresay that evidence you've not examined does not persuade. It's clear to me that you've not read the Miller or Begala books, and that you have no intention of doing so--not because the authors are "ill-equipped to offer a credible assessment," but because your closed mind can't deal with the notion that your beloved Dubya is as stupid as some say he is. Miller in particular is completely qualified to assess the intelligence of Bush's public and private utterings and writings. And unlike, say, Rush Limbaugh, Miller and Begala back up their observations with citations. When they say that Dubya said thus-and-such at such-and-such a place, you can take it to the bank.

And you, Some Guy, persistently ignore my statements to the effect that public speaking ability is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for high intelligence. Neither is the lack of such ability an indication of low intelligence. If you're not careful, you're going to make an Ayniss of yourself too.

I'm not going to waste my time on books that pursue the logical fallacy I've outlined above. Since it's fallacy, why in the world should I examine evidence substantiating the claim? In other words, the conclusion doesn't follow no matter how much evidence is amassed to support the assertion that's linked via fallacy to it.

To restate the fallacy in more direct terms:

"The sky is blue, therefore you're a moron."

Ah, yes, "Some Guy", Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at the New York University...*snort chuckle*...the man manfully (or, as he would doubtless have us put it, "person-of-male-genderfully") defying the tyrannically yet boneheaded impulses of Bush the Lesser by giving such interviews as this and < a href="[Link: www.centerforbookculture.org...]

Prejudiced? Him? Oh, no, couldn't. He's just another simple progressive (something that is virtually a pleonasm) fighting for Truth, Justice, and the anti-American Way.

And Begala? I'll just assume that you threw as distraction, as not even Jak King is ignorant enough to assume that we would not recognize that name.

Go back to MetaFilter, Guy; people there really are "to dumb" to recognize when they're being propagandized.

Some Guy -

2 points. Congrats, here's my return.

... well goodness, in doing my research, I typed Gore lies in google, and look what came up, but a nice little listing put together by the National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com/gorelies/gorelies.shtml)

They list 41, but I'll just enter the few I hated the most:

CLAIM: At Sept. 22 press conference, Gore says, “I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic reserve since the days when it was first established.”
TRUTH: President Ford established the Strategic Petroleum Reserves when he signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) on December 22, 1975 — two years before Al Gore became a congressman.

CLAIM: Gore said he has “always, always, always” supported Roe v. Wade.
TRUTH: In 1977, Rep. Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment, which says that abortion “takes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being,” and that there is no constitutional right to abortion. He cast many other votes favorable to the pro-life cause and earned an 84 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

CLAIM: “I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. I had the first hearing on that issue.”
TRUTH: In October 1978, Gore did hold congressional hearings on Love Canal — which he apparently “found” two months after President Carter declared it a disaster area and the federal government offered to buy the homes.

CLAIM: “I was the author of that proposal [the Earned Income Tax Credit]. I wrote that, so I say [to Bill Bradley], Welcome aboard. That is something for which I have been the principal proponent for a long time.”
TRUTH: The original EITC law was enacted in 1975. Gore entered Congress in 1977.

In addition, Gore was caught making secret deals with Russia to allow them to continue shipping arms (including submarines) to Iran without congress' knowledge - in direct violation of federal law... which seems a little more serious to me than wether or not Bush and Ken Lay were buddies.

Ayniss wrote: "And you, Some Guy, persistently ignore my statements to the effect that public speaking ability is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for high intelligence. Neither is the lack of such ability an indication of low intelligence. If you're not careful, you're going to make an Ayniss of yourself too.

"I'm not going to waste my time on books that pursue the logical fallacy I've outlined above. Since it's fallacy, why in the world should I examine evidence substantiating the claim? In other words, the conclusion doesn't follow no matter how much evidence is amassed to support the assertion that's linked via fallacy to it."

Or in other words, "My mind's made up--don't confuse me with the facts!" Begala and Miller do more than demonstrate that Bush lacks public speaking ability, they show in great detail that every "success" Bush can claim was handed to him thanks to his family connections and wealth. They show, time and time again, that Bush is a Bear of Very Little Brain.

I don't blame you, in a way, for your refusal to read those books; if you had to read them and then try to defend the charges made against Bush therein, you'd have a tough row to hoe. Better to do as you've done by taking the coward's way out, waving your hands and claiming the evidence you asked me to provide isn't relevant to a discussion of Bush's intellect, or lack thereof. Well, maybe not better, but certainly easier.

Given your demonstrated proclivity for fallacy, I don't take offence.

All I have to say is this:

[Link: user.tninet.se...]

I'm pretty sure we have amassed no small amount of evidence that you, too are a "Bear of Very Little Brain". But we're not going to get all judgemental about it.

The assertions you claim Miller and Begala have proven in no way prove Bush is a moron. They do point to the notion that the way was smoothed for him, which is altogether a different notion. In short, in case the big words lost you, it's just another fallacy.