Or is it easier just to call all liberals as “baby killers”, all conservatives as “war mongers”, all environmentalists as “hippy vegetarians”?
2007-02-14 03:29:44 · 24 answers · asked by Walter D 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
i'm fed up with the ratpublicans and the dummiecrates, how do ya like me now?
2007-02-14 03:34:33 · answer #1 · answered by Billie R 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes!
Elected oficials are all so inconsequential to what is realy happening in country it would be better off for every individual to just forget all of them , unless one wants to enter politics to make a living, and just get on with making money, having fun, and enjoying time with loved ones.
And this is coming from an ex baby killing hippy vegetarian environmentalist warmonger, who eats meat, packs a gun, and loves life.
2007-02-14 11:41:15 · answer #2 · answered by theooldman 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are many aspects to intelligence.
You cannot be stupid and become president of the u.s.
You cannot be stupid and get the u.s. population to support your war (the majority may not support it now, but they did).
He may not be a good public speaker, but that does not make one stupid. He may go about doing things in a way that people disagree, but this does not make you stupid either.
Bush IS stubborn, however, and it seems as if people confuse his stubborness with stupidity. For all we know, 20 years from know, we could all think that Bush was a genius for his foresight.
Looks like people hate real talk
2007-02-14 11:41:45 · answer #3 · answered by Marcus S 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Certainly it would be more constructive to aim criticism at the people who control Bush, whether that is an elite or the voting public a more apt description would be greedy and insatiable rather than stupid.
2007-02-14 11:42:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush is one person. All your other examples are generalizations. You can draw some conclusions about a specific person, but it's a complete error to try and ascribe the characteristics you imply to broad loosely-defined groups.
2007-02-14 12:17:52 · answer #5 · answered by mattzcoz 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe people refer to him as 'stupid' not because of a low IQ, but rather because of all the incompetent decisions he has made.
Maybe rather than 'stupid' or 'moronic' or 'mentally challenged' Bush should be referred to as inept, ham-fisted, clumsy, inexpert, bungling, unskilled, dishonest, ineffectual, unimpressive, mediocre, pathetic, wretched, useless etc. All of these terms accurately reflect Bush's performance in the White House without actually questioning his questionable intelligence.
2007-02-14 11:47:04 · answer #6 · answered by Bobby Cretin 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
NO! bush is not a good person or president. I dont think that any of our politicians are that good right now anway, I think the hole entire goverment needs a serious look at.
2007-02-14 11:38:59 · answer #7 · answered by Jon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll tell you one thing, I sure am tired of it. I can't wait until we actually have a smart president in the White House and people will stop referring to our leaders as stupid.
2007-02-14 11:48:47 · answer #8 · answered by leftist1234 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Real is as real does. Ten years ago Bush could speak in whole sentences and not trip over his tongue. All that booze and drugs is finally catching up with him.
2007-02-14 11:46:50 · answer #9 · answered by No Bushrons 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, calling Dubya stupid is getting old.
All the other things you mentioned are stereotypes--of the worse possible people in each group. You do know that most people are normal and rational :)
2007-02-14 11:43:59 · answer #10 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Scares me. A stupid person can't. He's fooled most of us, most of the time. Now we'd like him to resign, cheney to go on medical leave forever, and start ALL OVER with Florida recount.
2007-02-14 11:36:53 · answer #11 · answered by peter s 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋