Why do you still support Bush?

I don't think George W. Bush ever claimed to be an "intellectual". Neither did Mayor Richard J. Daley. In the opinion of many, Daley was the best big city mayor in the last hundred years. He beat George Bush's malapropisms hands down.

I am very much afraid that Mr.Frank Apisa knows very little about Intelligence and how it is manifested.

Dr. Fred Greenstein, a Presidential Scholar, who, I am sure,knows far more about Presidents than Mr. Frank Apisa, said in his book, The Presidential Difference----quote---

"There can be no doubt about Clinton;s impressive intelligence, however, Clinton fits the description of the lawyer who masters issues with the speed of oil covering water but sometimes does so at the same depth.
Despite Clinton';s intelligence, the Clinton White House did not fit the existing models of presidential organization. The oxymoronic organization of the Clinton White House has been compared to a little boys's soccer team with no assigned positions and each player chasing the ball. Despite the freedom Clinton afforded his staff, he has not been the kind of president who is beloved by his aides. His associates found him difficult to advise, because of the inconstancy of his policy positions. He was subject to fits of anger...It is no wonder tha the memoirs of Clinton's former aides are uniformly ambivalent about him..Clinton spent most of his time in meetings in which participation was a function of who showed up."


This last point is crucial. Clinton became president in 1992. The Democrats had a stranglehold on the Senate and the House and had the majorities for years.

Clinton booted away that majority and now, twelve years later, they still have not won it back.

So despite the criticism of George W. Bush, the Democrats have been able to do very little since they do not control any of the chairmanships in the Senate or the House. As many people are aware, that is where the power comes from.

There was no President as intelligent as Bill Clinton. His memory and test taking ability was legendary. He could speak well and at length on many subjects, yet he is viewed as a failed president who lost the House and Senate for the Democrats and had a tenure which was famed only for his passage of NAFTA, China Most FAvored Nation and Welfare Reform.

All of those initiatives were Republican initiatives.

Clinton, the brilliant president, ended his career ignominiously as the second president to have been impeached.

Ican't speak for all of the people on this thread but I,for one, am very content with the tax cuts pushed by President Bush. Only economic illiterates do not know that despite the tax cuts, revenue is up, as it was up in each previous tax cut program( that of Reagan and John Kennedy)

I am also very pleased with another accomplishment of George W. Bush.
Those who are incompetent in the area of knowledge about the Judicial Branch do not know how IMPORTANT the appointment of the two new USSC judges has been. Judge Roberts and Judge Alito have already demonstrated how vital George W. Bush's appointments have been.

Mr. Candidone- I have a solution to the problem of "generalization".

If you never generalize, I will not generalize either. I can win at that game since I have a deeper cache of SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAN YOU HAVE. If you are game, we'll begin.

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Candidone- I have a solution to the problem of "generalization".

If you never generalize, I will not generalize either. I can win at that game since I have a deeper cache of SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAN YOU HAVE. If you are game, we'll begin.

I simply illustrated the fact that you hold others to a standard that you yourself are unwilling or unable to maintain.
This was never about caches of specifics Bernard, it was about generalizations and the fact that you may feel free to sweep the board with them, but I am not.
There's no denying the amount of spare time you have researching specifics.
I have other things to do and respect very much what you bring to the board.

candidone1 wrote:

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Candidone- I have a solution to the problem of "generalization".

If you never generalize, I will not generalize either. I can win at that game since I have a deeper cache of SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAN YOU HAVE. If you are game, we'll begin.

I simply illustrated the fact that you hold others to a standard that you yourself are unwilling or unable to maintain.
This was never about caches of specifics Bernard, it was about generalizations and the fact that you may feel free to sweep the board with them, but I am not.
There's no denying the amount of spare time you have researching specifics.
I have other things to do and respect very much what you bring to the board.

me too Bernard... I hold you in high esteem.

me too Bernard... I hold you in high esteem.

We shall forever associate the phrase "fukin' moron" with you, Frank.

I read Mr. APisa's post on President Bush. He is, of course, entirely entitled to his opinon. But, in light of the fact that he gives no evidence or documentation to back up his statements that President Bush's actions as President are deleterious to our country, I really cannot give Mr.Apisa much weight. Until the time that Mr. Apisa gives evidence that Mr. Bush's actions are deleterious to our country, I must regrettably file his comment in the circular file as completely meaningless as a statement of fact but of course meaningful as an OPINION!