Who's Smarter Liberals or Bush?
74
Who’s Smarter Bush or Kerry, Palin or Hillary?
April 18, 2011
Sometimes I just wish liberals would…well to be crude—close their pie-hole.
I always say: debating a liberal is... “Like shooting fish in a barrel” to quote Judge Judy.
Full disclosure, I’m a J.J. fan, yes indeed. I can’t be a total news-a-holic for crying out loud. I do manage to slip in my J.J. viewing. I have to relax sometimes…
Debating with liberals, in other words, is often so very
easy. To coin (and tweak) another phrase, I can do it with my brain tied behind my back...
We have heard repeatedly via Democrats, liberals and
perpetuated by the state-run media/a.k.a. main-stream media, that George Bush
is an idiot.
Every single Democrat is a genius when listening to a Democrat or liberal. Every single Republican is a dope. If the person in question happens to be a Conservative Christian, they somehow become even dumber using the liberal litmus test.
That dumb Sarah Palin. Yeah, what an idiot that babe is eh? Often, liberals have compared her to Hillary Clinton. Let’s go there, shall we?
Before we do though, let me freely and clearly explain, I'm not particularly a Sarah Palin devotee. I am merely addressing the liberal's irrational obsessive need to demean and criticize her.
Sarah Palin became governor of Alaska. I am of course, naming merely one of her accomplishments. However, if one were inclined, here’s a good summary:
http://www.biography.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-360398
Hillary Clinton became Senator of a state she never lived in because her husband was President of the United States. Using the same biographical database we see far fewer accomplishments when compared to Sarah Palin. Essentially, other than becoming a lawyer, Hillary’s main accomplishments were achieved riding on her husband’s coat-tails:
http://www.biography.com/articles/Hillary-Clinton-9251306
If Sarah Palin is such a moron, how did she manage to become governor of Alaska I should ask a liberal? Of course one of the things they’ll immediately and hysterically point to is, “She didn’t finish her term!” That’s right, she didn’t.
Neither did Hillary Clinton though. Hillary didn't finish her term as NY Senator. Does that make her really stupid too?
Recently Joy Behar began to list the reasons President Obama is just so darn smart. One of the things she listed is he (allegedly) graduated from Harvard. I pose “allegedly” because I for one, have yet to see any evidence he qualified to even attend Harvard – no less hold any student offices no less graduate from said ivy league college.
But I digress.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck countered Joy with, something to the effect of: does that mean George Bush is a genius too?
W received a graduate degree from Harvard Business School after graduating from Yale.
Speaking of Yale, remember when John Kerry ran against George Bush?
Note to liberals: stop using that tired old argument about how dumb George W. Bush is. You may be able to dupe your mind-numbed base with this utter nonsense, but those of us with a brain capable of rational and logical thought know otherwise.
First of all, even some in the--dare I say, main-stream media, begrudgingly see
the intelligence behind the man and his decisions in W’s book “Decision
Points.” He, unlike Mr. Obama, actually wrote this book too!
More importantly though is this: George W. Bush isn’t stupid.
How do I know this? By my own simple test.
Whenever I debate a liberal who says "Bush is stupid", I ask them “Who did you vote for in the Kerry verses Bush Presidential campaign?”
If they bother to answer, or better still if they even voted – their answer would of course be, “Kerry.”
For my conservative patriot friends, just use this Hub if you please, to attempt to reason with a blathering liberal screaming, “Bush is stupid.”
For liberals reading this, in the future, please just be quiet. Thank you.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (5)
- Funny (5)
- Awesome (8)
- Beautiful (4)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
Name calling is the liberal thing to do. I was on one political site where a liberal made calling George Bush 'stupid' an internet career.
This guy was so illiterate, that he could barely construct a sentence, yet HE consistently called Bush stupid.
I finally asked him what he did for a living, and he replied that he was a retired union bus driver.
Sigh.
OM Gosh Will - that is SUCH a hoot! ROTFL! I did that once to a poor liberal. He too couldn't put a sentence together, so all I did was point out all of his typos/grammatical errors and misspellings amidst his rant about how dumb Bush was and BOY did he get mad! ROTFL!!
Thanks so much Minetonka Twin - we have to have each other's backs because the liberals can't debate, so they just push the meany buttons to be spiteful when it comes to conservative Hubs.
LMAO.. this is great. Clear, concise and to the point, which a liberal won't get.
I pushed'em all too, nice one cjv! I think we've all had the joy of debating a liberal on here, a lot of what comes out of their mouths is mind-blowingly...stupid :)
Carol -
Nice piece. I believe George W was the only President to hold an MBA degree (from Harvard no less).
Regards,
Tim
Stars again Carol. How did I know you were about to write something along these lines? LMAO
The Frog
I have to practice avoidance. Speaking to liberals is bad for my health. Besides some of them are near and dear to me so I have to exercise self control. Up and awesome.
Can you describe your foreign policy experience? "I can see Russia from my backyard!"
Africa is not a country, but a continent.
Sarah is a talking bobblehead. Why do I think she is ignorant? I can give her entire speech before she does. It is like taking a handful of bumper stickers from the GOP and reading them. I enjoy how you list her accomplishments...care to list how she hasn't finished a thing in her life, except pregnancy?
On her WORST air-headed day, she's smarter than Obama with her entire brain tied behind her back - no question.
If you want to talk idiotic things Palin says - what about Obama thinking there are 57 states? Or Austrians speak "Austrian?"
And are you kidding, you want to go there to speeches? Without a teleprompter Obams wouldn't be able to wipe his fanny - he's a clueless prop - who spouts things OTHER people say for him.
What has Obama accomplished in his life? Palin became governor of Alaska - you know, one of those 57 states of the U.S. - you really don't want to go there Texas ---
For your cringing enjoyment - watch Barry in action with blunder after stupid, stupid blunder - in actions and words. Sarah's got NOTHIN' on ole Barry:
cjv, this is so refreshing to read this....after seeing first hand just HOW stupid, stupid can be, by watching the news and seeing this POTUS, day after day, bring stupid to a whole new level...and the dems continue to put blame on Bush on almost every thing they can....
the truth, like you pointed out is becoming more and more obvious, to just who's picture should be in the dictionary next to the word Stupid.
as always, a great read.
:)
Very, very well written CMerritt and I am grateful you used your valuable time to come here to leave such a great comment!
Thanks again!
Carol
GWB is far smarter than the typical liberal, but the analysis is complicated. Bush was really a moderate, but he was constantly under the pull of neocon policy wonks in his administration, like Karl Rove. Essentially, he was pulled in a conservative direction, but pressured to act in an unethical manner.
Bush's greatest mistake, and the cause of most of his problems, was how he handled 9/11. In reality, he handled the Afghanistan reprisal extremely well. We got in and out very fast, without losing many American lives or causing much collateral damage. We also sent a very strong message that reduced terrorism.
The problem is that a couple days after the tragedy, he made a public statement that he would kill or capture every terrorist on earth. Of course, the Afghanistan reprisal hardly wiped out the Taliban or Al Quada, but we were hardly bogged down there for ten years like the Russians and sent home in defeat. It was really a big win for the US, but the public viewed it as a loss because Bush set the bar so high.
As a result of the perceived loss in Afghanistan, Bush began to trail Kerry badly in the 2003 reelection polls. Bush needed a major military win to stay in power. Thus Iraq. Although the Israeli's knocked out Iraq's only nuclear research facility earlier than 2003, the CIA magically came up with "proof" if Iraqi nuclear research that violated the UN peace accord signed after the first war with Iraq. This "proof" was nothing more than a picture of two metal drums with a biohazard stamp on them, which for all we know could have been snapped in New Jersey. So we invaded Iraq a second time, took down the Baath party, Bush's poll numbers went up, and he was reelected. The tail wagged the dog.
The dubious exercise in Iraq was very expensive, and added hundreds of billions to the national debt. But this isn't all. Post-invasion security concerns turned Bush into a Constitution breaker. Bush executed more signing orders (illegal documents saying "the law doesn't apply to me") than any president in history (mainly related to national security). He also submitted the blatantly illegal Patriot Act to Congress, which was passed, even though it violates four Amendments in the Bill of Rights (1,4,5, and 6). Bush turned the US into a quasi police state, acting far beyond what enumerated federal powers permits under the 10th Amendment.
Bush was also a shirker of affirmative duty. His oversight of banking regulators and the Federal Reserve was simply nonexistent. Regulators not only refused to enforce risk rules in the banking sector, even though the taxpayer was on the hook due to FDIC insurance, but Greenspan created a housing bubble by keeping interest rates near zero. Greenspan's interest rate policy, in combination with highly dangerous adjustable rate mortgages, fueled a home buying frenzy that encouraged millions of people to purchase homes that were not only way overpriced due to excess demand, but ultimately became unaffordable due to interest rate resets on the ARM's. This, combined with the lax lending standards mandated by Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" culminated in the banking crash of 2008, costing trillions in FICA payments, extra-legal bailouts of banks and GSE's, and economic stimulus programs.
Is Bush smarter than liberals? Yes, but nonetheless, his administration was a failure. Left to his own devices, he may have earned a better legacy. The neocons who were pulling his strings were not like the pure TPM constitutional conservatives of today, like Mike Lee and Marco Rubio. Neocons are a chimera of conservative ends and liberal means (the latter being activism, a euphamism for law breaking). Were Bush a true conservative, he could have simply dumped these crazy advisors. But being a centrist, Bush had no grounding in any particular ideology, so he was very easy to manipulate. In the end, he has to take responsibility for his mistakes, but there is some mitigation here.
Stu - we'll have to disagree on Iraq. The tail didn't appear to wag the dog. What you say about harboring terrorists and Bush's promise is true. Saddam Hussein not only harbored terrorists but he openly supported terrorism with television programs showing the checks he gave the "martyred" families of the dead terrorists.
Plus - Saddam's own top generals believed firmly that he had WMD's. It's not as simple as Bush needing a win and then taking scant evidence from the CIA to mock up a pretend war. It was far, far more complicated than that.
My husband has a high security clearance but frankly, you don't need one to know the following. We went into Iraq because Saddam posed a threat to the U.S. in that he would not allow inspections, told everyone he had WMD's, his own top people believed firmly that he did - and actually used chemical weapons on 40,000 of his own people - the Kurds.
In the aftermath of 9/11 - knowing Saddam had slaughtered 40,000 of his own people with chemical weapons, he disallowed inspections as he was forced to do after the Gulf War - Bush would have been an idiot NOT to go in and remove the dictator from his throne.
Immediately after the capture of Saddam, Kadaffi contacted the state department and this is pretty much a quote, "I don't want to end up like Hussien, I will negotiate and will give up my nuclear weapons."
Shortly after that - the North Korean nut case who before wouldn't even go to a table for talks, asked to talk with the U.S.
I'm sorry Stu - but it actually made us much, much stronger by going into Iraq. It's this administration that is mucking everything up.
We'll also have to disagree on the housing crash to some degree. What actually caused the crash was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Dodd and Frank demanding lenders give shaky insupportable mortgage loans. This was done over and over and over by the millions. When they all ultimately began to default, it was like a domino effect - the house of cards began to fall. This is according to the Wall Street Journal Stu. I'm confident that Wall Street didn't cause this crash - it was government getting into the business of "giving away" shady home loans for risky people who couldn't pay the loans back.
Regulations don't balance the market place Stu. I'm surprised a brilliant money cruncher like you would go that way. While Wall Street certainly has and had its share of crooks - let me pose this to you.
Most of the crooks created ponzi schemes. Investors are almost always promised not only a great return on their investment but a quick turn-around. If it's too good to be true - it usually isn't true - and while I know there must have been many who were totally innocent - I can't believe all were.
I think regulations are hurting investors and businesses. Government in our businesses is part of what's wrong with our current economic situation. More federal government restrictions is not at all the answer.
Hi Carol,
I agree that Saddam supported terror, but the WMD thing was overblown. It's true that the Republican Guard killed about 250,000 Shiites and Kurds with chemical weapons, but this was not a threat to the US. If this was our real issue anyway, why not say so, rather than contriving fake evidence of nuclear research?
The use of chemical weapons against his own people, violating the no-fly zone agreement, and blocking UN inspections all justified reprisals, but not all out war.
Our policy in Iraq made us weaker. While Saddam probably killed about 800,000 of his own people (250,000 Shiites and Kurds, plus 550,000 Sunni's who were not "PC" and simply "disappeared"), once we pull our troops out, Iraq will become an Iranian satellite, if not not actually absorbed by Iran. Exportation of terror from Iraq to Europe and the Middle East will go up in the end, not down.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed to the 2008 collapse as a result of holding and insuring large amounts of unsound loans, but this was mainly a result of the Clinton era CRA. Fannie and Freddie were in effect forced to feed the problem by making bad mortgage loans easy to insure and resell to investors (i.e., they were forced to create a public market in what were essentially "junk bonds", which enabled banks to generate big fees by making loans to almost anyone, and then escape the problem by packaging them into securities and selling them at high prices).
In general, I agree that government regulation often causes more harm than good. But in the case of the housing crisis, the absence of enforcement of existing regulation was as much of a problem as was regulation itself. While it's true that the CRA encouraged alot of bad bank lending, regulatory laxity was every bit as much to blame:
(1) Capital ratio rules were not enforced.
(2) Asset/liability duration matching rules were not enforced (leaving banks subject to capital erosion if unfavorable shifts in the yield curve occurred).
(3) The repeal of Glass-Steagall permitted investment banks, with much lower capital requirements than commercial banks, to get into the home mortage business. Gramm–Leach–Bliley in effect let businesses with much riskier portfolios than commercial banks obtain FDIC insurance on their consumer deposits.
You might argue that (1)-(3) are just private market risks. The issue is that the taxpayer is on the hook for bank collapses due to FDIC insurance. Accordingly, risk regulation is proper here. In the cases of (1) and (2), we actually did have the regulations in place, but Bush, with Greenspan's enthusiastic backing, failed to enforce them. In the case of (3), many of the combined investment/commercial banks were holders of (investors in) securitized junk mortgage loans (CRA/ARM loans issued by commercial banks and S&L's, and packaged into collateralized debt obligations) , yet their consumer deposits were insured by the taxpayer via FDIC. (1)-(3) was essentially saying to the banking sector "grow like crazy without any risk management prudence so you can pay yourselves big bonuses, and if the ship sinks, Uncle Sam will bail you out via taxpayer funded FDIC insurance." And in reality, the bank bailouts in 2008 went far beyond protecting depositors; we actually bailed out many of the banks themselves (unlike the S&L crisis of 25 years ago, where we just protected depositors, but let failed institutions go into bankruptcy for dissolution or buyout).
Stu
Stu-again, I respectfully disagree especially with regard to the Iraq war. You keep saying that the evidence for WMD's was contrived. The only "contriving" was done by Saddam. The fact he wouldn't allow inspections only fueled this problem. Your argument also would possibly be more valid if 9/11 hadn't happened. Clinton ignored Bin Laden and then look what happened? This was a powerful dictator with the riches of his oil fields to commit massive attacks on other countries if what he kept threatening was true. If Bush hadn't acted, it would have been foolhardy.
At the time, if it was "contrived" then that would mean the Democratic Congress was in on it as well as both Clintons, Kerry, Biden, and pretty much every single Congressman/Senator on both sides of the isle have quotes with regard to the imminent dangers of Saddam Hussein and his WMD's. As I told you, Hussein's own top level military and other top officials all themselves believed he had WMD's.
Am I saying Bush executed the plan of attack in Iraq perfectly. No. But what I vehemently oppose (in your argument - not you personally, just this part of your argument) is the idea Bush began this war to get reelected.
I have never, in my life-time, known a President more supportive of the U.S. Military. He did so much the scenes that the media (of course) ignored. He did so much consistently for families of the military throughout his eight years. There is no way I believe this man went to war in Iraq or any war to boost his chances of reelection. No way.
I use the fact that he gassed his own people as clear evidence that he intentionally slaughtered his own people. What would he do with a nuclear weapon or even a dirty bomb left in the middle of Times Square in a backpack to a country he hated with every fiber of his being?
Again I remind you, this specific show of force not only diminished the size of numerous Terror organizations but it scattered them and brought two world leaders to the table. These leaders were dangerous nuts, yet when Saddam was pulled out of that hole, that show of force made us a force to be reckoned with. You can't ignore that very positive outcome of what happened as a result of Iraq.
My husband headed the transition of all 30,000 Iraq prisoners from U.S. Control and captivity to the Iraqi's. Talk to a now citizen of their own country before you make up your mind. My husband told story after story of the Iraqi's who were so thrilled to be out from under the nightmarish reign of Saddam Hussein.
One story: When my husband visited one of the castles of Saddam - he offered his interpreter to have her chance to sit on his throne first. With tears streaming down her face she refused telling him that in the middle of the night, Saddam's henchmen burst into her home when she was a young woman. That night they took her two uncles and her father and they never heard what happened to them. But there were stories. She said she didn't want to have anything to do with anything that man had ever touched.
My husband had a million of these stories.
I believe your opinion of why we went into Iraq is based on your dislike of George Bush so you are seeing malevolent motives in his decisions. I firmly believe quite the opposite of Mr. Bush's reasons for the war on terror.
Hi CJ,
I agree Saddam had WMD's. My point is that they were not nuclear, but chemical. Bush lied when he presented evidence at the UN hearing regarding the vote to invade.
I agree that Bush was a strong supporter of the military. But he was a stronger supporter of himself. One cabinet member (I forget who) said "Saddam has to go", and that was that. The invasion had to be for political purposes, because it had no strategic military value.
Yes, Saddam was a madman. But as mentioned earlier, he had only one nuclear research facility, and that was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike prior to 2003. Iraq was not engaging in nuclear research when we attacked.
The attack on Iraq made us look more like fools than "someone to be reckoned with." What is the point of having a UN vote, and then violating the outcome? Basically Bush was just taking a flyer he would get world support to cover his political backside a little, but in the end he didn't care about world opinion. Domestic opinion was what mattered. He needed to live up to being King Kong after promising the moon in regard to the 9/11 reprisal. He talked his way into a corner, and had to blow his way out by toppling a government.
I don't dislike Bush any more than I dislike all the presidents of my lifetime (52 years). As exceptions, I had alot of respect for JFK and Reagan. Both of course had their faults, but in their own ways, each were great men.
Stu
Stu - where is your source that "Bush lied?" Where is your proof of this?
Hi cjv123, this was awesome and voted up! I am now a follower. I personally am so tired of the phrase "we inherited this mess from Bush", like Hannity always says man up Mr. President to Obama. When will this administration start to take responsibility for the state of the country. Anyway I just had to get that in, I too have liberal friends so it is hard sometimes to be silent.....:) BTW, I too have a son who is in the navy he fought & flew over Bagdad when we first went over there.....thank God he is home safely now. It was a tough go when he was there as you well know. Blessings to you and I certainly look forward to reading more of your awesome hubs!
Thanks Whidbeywriter and thank you and your son for your service. The wives and mother's of soldiers play their part too! God bless you!
Hi CJ,
As mentioned a couple times, Iraq had only one nuclear research facility, and it was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike prior to 2003. Iraq could not possibly have been engaging in nuclear research when GWB attacked.
It's what they call "the tail wagging the dog." We engaged in a giant operation (toppling the Baath Party) to achieve a puny result (reelecting George Bush).
Stu
Stu - I understand what you're saying but you forget two things - WMD's means "Weapons of Mass Destruction." While that of course includes Nuclear Weapons it also includes Chemical and biological weapons. We knew Saddam killed 40,000 of his own people with a CHEMICAL weapon so we knew he had that capability. So right there - WMD's. Plus you say he had ONLY one nuclear research that was destroyed. How the heck could we have possibly known 100% given the fact he wouldn't allow inspections?
Now - back to WMD's - Biological weapons for example -- Ricin - that only takes a thimbleful to wipe out the population of Manhattan - are also considered WMD's we did not know he didn't have that or any other such weapon.
And he WAS pursuing a Nuclear weapons program. Remember Yellow Cake Uranium? Under the Bush administration we received intel that he got his hands on some. And in fact, when we invaded, we found a whole stock pile of it. So one facility was blown up, with his resource and billions at his disposal, what was to stop him (at the time) from building another? He was obviously getting the materials to do just that.
So it wasn't Bush wagging any tail - at the time, given the conditions, given the fact Saddam wouldn't allow any inspections via the U.N's conditions or any other conditions, we did the prudent thing. Those are the facts Stu. With 20 20 hind sight, you might have a semi-argument that he wasn't an imminent danger to the U.S. but how could we know with absolute certainty given what had just happened with 9/11? You and I agree on most things - but I'm afraid you want to see the tail wagging the dog here when it was credible evidence, factual evidence - the Yellow Cake Uranium actually, that the U.S. was in grave danger. Bush acted the way he should have given the situation shortly after 9/11. Ignoring the evidence we had at the time would have been crazy.
Hi CJ,
I know Saddam violated the UN peace accords of 1991 by violating the no fly zone agreement, refusing UN inspections, producing chemical weapons, and so on. This may have justified a reprisal, but not takedown of the entire government. I say "may have" as the peace accords were 12 years old after Saddam surrendered the first time. Just as with the Gitmo detainees who seem to be held hostage without formal charge indefinitely, there needs to be some time limit on these "holding patterns." I appreciate that this concept places us at greater risk, but at some point our rights end and the other guy's begins.
The reality is that Saddam was an extremely evil man, who killed about 800,000 of his own countrymen (about 250,000 Shiite villagers by gassing, and 550,000 Sunnis who got caught saying the wrong thing and simply vanished). Perhaps a UN sanctioned humanitarian invasion would have been justified, but as you know, only the UK, Kuwait, and Spain supported us when Bush appealed to the UN General Assembly. So Bush went it alone.
Also, bear in mind that Saddam's support of terror was only to families of individuals who died committing isolated acts of killing on their own in the Middle East. Saddam was not in bed with either Shiite or Sunni radical groups. His brand of terror was highly localized to the Middle East and no threat to the US.
Stu
Oviously you don't like liberals, maybe they don't like you either. We all have opinions. I have heard good and bad ideas from both sides. We need to work together. Quit insulting those who disagree with you because like you they get to have opinions too.
Minnetonka Twin Level 7 Commenter 13 months ago
I had to push all the buttons on this one. Informative, clever and funny. Nice job:) I liked the cartoons too.