Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

The original term moron was coined by an American Psychologist in New Jersey during the early part of the 20th century. Clinically they defined a moron as someone who can pass as just about normal, but are mentally very backward. The term Moron was added to the US version of the IQ test to screen out people who looked intelligent but weren't, and was considered to be a person with an IQ between 50-75.

So technically , with an IQ of 91, President George W Bush is not strictly a moron.

Further in George Bush's defence it should also be remembered that as a long term alcoholic and a drug abuser he has almost certainly suffered significant brain damage and was probably not born with such a limited mental capacity.

POLL: CLARK LEADS DEMOCRATIC CONTENDERS
Sat Sep 20 2003 16:13:43 ET

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who announced his presidential candidacy this week, leads all Democratic contenders who are currently in the race with 14 percent of the vote among registered Democrats and Democratic leaners, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. He's followed by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who both get 12 percent of the vote. Clark's impressive debut is undercut, however, by the sizable percentage of all those polled (45%) who say they've never heard of him before now, the poll shows.

President Bush's job approval rating continued to drop in the Newsweek Poll, to 51 percent. And by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent, registered voters say they would not like to see Bush re-elected to another term.

For the first time in the Newsweek Poll, Bush's approval for his handling of the situation in Iraq has dropped below 50 percent to 46 percent, a drop of 5 percentage points from the Newsweek Poll of September 11-12, 2003. Forty-seven percent of all those polled disapprove of how he's handling the situation in Iraq, an increase of 5 percentage points from the earlier poll. Bush's approval slide continues in ratings for his handling of other issues. On the economy: approval dropped to 38 percent (from 41%) but disapproval jumped six points to 57 percent. Bush also scores in the low 40s on the environment (43%) and taxes (42%). The only area where Bush continues strong support is his handling of policies to prevent and minimize terrorism at home: 66 percent, the poll shows.

In a test election against President Bush, 43 percent of registered voters say they'd vote for Clark or lean toward Clark, compared to 47 percent who'd vote for Bush or lean toward Bush. By comparison, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry trails Bush by 48 percent v. 43 percent of registered voters and Dean trails Bush by 52 percent v. 38 percent, the poll shows.

If former Vice President Al Gore were in the race against Bush, the race would be close again: 45 percent of registered voters would vote for Gore and 48 percent for Bush. But if New York Sen. Hillary Clinton were facing Bush, Bush leads with 50 percent of the vote versus 43 percent for Clinton, the poll shows.

On the subject of Iraq, 56 percent of all those polled say they think the amount of money the U.S. is spending for operations in post-war Iraq is too high; 31 percent say the amount is just right. And although this week members of the Bush administration said there is no connection between Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, 47 percent of those polled believe there is a connection; 37 percent say no.

With Clark joining the 2004 Presidential race, 26 percent of those polled, and 24 percent of registered voters, believe it's very important that a president of the United States served in the military; 37 percent of all voters (38% of registered voters) say it's somewhat important while 35 percent (36% of registered voters) say it's not important. Considering the challenges the U.S. faces in fighting terrorism in the coming years, 36 percent of all those polled say having a president who had served a top military commander would make them feel safer and more secure; 61 percent say it wouldn't make much difference.

Forty percent of all those polled say Clark's military background makes them feel more confident in his ability to deal with national defense and security issues than any of the other democrats running for president, the poll shows. But 42 percent say it doesn't make them feel more confident.

And 52 percent of all those polled say the fact that Clark has never held political office doesn't make much difference in whether or they'd support his candidacy for president; 13 percent say it makes it more likely to support him and 24 percent it makes them less likely to support him.

Twenty-six percent of all those polled have a favorable opinion of Clark; 11 percent have an unfavorable opinion and 45 percent say they've never heard of him. Among registered voters, 27 percent have a favorable opinion; 12 have an unfavorable opinion and 42 percent have never heard of him. Of Democrats and Democratic leaners, 36 say favorable; 6 percent unfavorable and 43 percent say they've never heard of him.

For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,001 adults aged 18 and older on September 18-19, 2003. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. This poll is part of the September 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, September 22).

Can we go back to talking about replacing Darth Bush, again?

btryflynet- I think you may be correct. But suppose the poster does not have an idea you can critique?
Is it considered bad form to point out that theposter is incorrect.

I am sure that you know, Btr, that Dyslexia's claim that Bush has an IQ of 91 is ignorant( ig notus)- not knowing.

How do you deal with an idea like that except to point out that the poster is ignorant?

Definition- Ignorant- "lacking knowledge about a particular fact" ( some people think being called ignorant is a perjorative, it is not).

You cannot exchange ideas with such a person until the egregious error is corrected.

It is clear to me that Dyslexia's post does not contribute to exchange of ideas or to dialogue because it is absurd. One cannot debate absurdity.

What do we do in such a case, Brtyf?

hobitbob wrote:

Can we go back to talking about replacing Darth Bush, again?

What disgusts me most, is there are actually people on this site who support him.

The organization FAIR, which to the best of my knowledge is a liberal organization( I will stand corrected if it is not) is an organization which provides fairness and accuracy in reporting.

EXTRA! June '87
What's FAIR?

By Jeff Cohen

FAIR is a media watch organization offering constructive criticism in an effort to correct media imbalance. We advocate for media access on behalf of those constituencies in our society that do not have the wealth to purchase their own TV stations or daily newspapers. We scrutinize media practices that slight public interest, peace and minority viewpoints.

All of us who founded FAIR have media backgrounds. Our sympathies are with the working press. We do not view reporters, editors and producers as our enemy. Nor do we hunt for conspiracies. The villain we see is not a person or group, but a historical trend: the increasing concentration of the U.S. media in fewer and fewer corporate hands.

FAIR was launched in mid-1986 at a time when the major media were bending distinctly rightward. Big media businesses were being absorbed by even bigger ones, with dangerous implications for those viewpoints already underrepresented. Well-financed right-wing groups like the misnamed Accuracy In Media (AIM) were harassing journalists who uncovered unpleasant truths about poverty, inequality, government corruption or U.S. military and nuclear policy.

FAIR came into being to offer a different kind of media criticism -- fully in keeping with the First Amendment. We do not work to prevent the airing of viewpoints with which we disagree. Our approach is to work for the inclusion of new viewpoints, not the exclusion of old ones. We seek to invigorate free speech by striving for a more pluralistic media.

We are dismayed that leaders of public interest movements generally do not speak for themselves in the major media. A graphic example: the nuclear freeze campaign. Arguably the biggest grassroots movement of the decade, the freeze won virtually every time its proposal was on a ballot. Yet when the freeze was discussed on national TV or in national publications, the leaders of the movement -- many of whom were women -- rarely got to speak for themselves. Instead they were spoken for by politicians and former leaders of the military establishment.

FAIR seeks to break this pattern of exclusion by dialoguing with media programmers, reporters and editors. In a democratic society, news and responsible opinion should extend beyond the perspectives of government and corporate elites.