English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I mean, he sucked the first time, is he gonna get better if he get's another turm? Hmm. doesn't appear so. He has the lowest I.Q. of any tested president. Heck, Clinton had the highest, and look at the trouble HE got into, even though he was a smart man.

2007-07-02 09:25:53 · 25 answers · asked by Mr. Heel 2 in Politics & Government Government

I'm not qa liberal.

2007-07-02 09:41:36 · update #1

I'm not a liberal.

2007-07-02 09:41:48 · update #2

25 answers

Actually I think it is a fact that Bush did not win either election hands down. Florida was all screwed up the first round and the electoral votes did it for him the second time.

2007-07-02 09:32:10 · answer #1 · answered by jlcaughlan 3 · 1 4

NO person whilst seated as a president has had an IQ test, so your statement of the lowest IQ of any tested president is a downright LIE, typical democrat lie.

However when both Bush and Kerry were IQ tested at college, BUSH had a higher IQ than Kerry.

Bush was a better alternative to Kerry and STILL IS.

Only the democrats could appoint a TRAITOR to run for president, imagine having kerry as president, a person who THREW away other peoples medals (the ****...r only throw away his own medal ribbons, too stupid to realiase its still the same award), whilst still a reserve navy officer illegally goes and meets with his nations enemies in Paris (he should have stayed in france, like the francophile gobshite that he is) a treasonable act which he still has gotten away with. Kerry should have been tried for treason, YET lets waste time and try and get scooter libby for something he never did, typical a nation where REAL traitors like kerry are sitting as senators and running for president whilst INNOCENT people are bing hounded and given 30 months jail. Screwed up; or what

2007-07-03 10:27:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Several reasons:

* The Iraq War was still popular.
* Bush's 9/11 popularity boost, while not as strong as before, still had some effect.
* The Bush campaign did an excellent job of defining Kerry in the minds of voters.
* The same-sex marriage issue attracted more Bush supporters to the polls, especially religious conservatives.
* Kerry ran a lousy campaign. If Clinton had run such a bad campaign in '92, issues like Gennifer Flowers and Whitewater would've sunk him right away.
* The Swift Boat campaign was effective in casting doubts about Kerry's trustworthiness, judgment and even his patriotism.

2007-07-02 16:45:14 · answer #3 · answered by MoeTheBartender 2 · 1 0

The CIA allowed Bush a second chance at office. They were in bed with Al-Queda and 911 was a good a podium as ever. Don't believe me look at Giuliani. If a shoe bomb goes off in India he's got the all the answers just like Bush seemed to during the start of this whole thing. They can go after Clinton for an affair yet they negate the biggest scam since Watergate all to give hope to a constituency too busy hoping Bush gets it right the second time around. People say Kerry this and Kerry that but I feel he would of gotten us out of this mess and Kcusinich would of been the statesman we were all looking for. Given all the good candidates we have today (e.g. Dodd) I know that one way or another the CIA and Giuliani will throw a slumber party for WWIII.

2007-07-02 17:57:02 · answer #4 · answered by just curious 3 · 0 2

Lol, I believe you are not a liberal, by your comment about Clinton. I think most people voted for Bush just to keep Kerry out of the way during a time of conflict. Most of the democrats I know couldnt stand Kerry. It is only the young, foolish, and disadvantaged that vote on idealistic agendas. Mostly college students, minorities, and throwbacks from the vietnam era. They are just as bad as the people in this country that think we should go back to 1833, where all the "decent" women wore dresses to their ankles, black folks were not fully human, and young girls were routinely fitted with chastity belts, the religious conservatives. The sad fact is that most people are not qualified to be a participant in their own governing. Until this statement is accepted as bitter fact instead of relegated to the ACLU's politically correct job tray, we will continue to have dishonest, philandering, corrupt, egomaniacal, intellectually and morally challenged candidates for president. Imagine how much more respected our country, and its political system would be if we did the following : A)Required all people who vote to be at least 25 years old and have either a degree in college, or certificate from a trade school or employer showing the person to be an "educated" member of the community. B)Must not have EVER been convicted of ANY kind of felony C)Must prove that they have paid their taxes D)Must not have ever been diagnosed with any mental illness that requires maintenence with medication.
This is just an example of course, but in order to understand why people vote the way they do, you have to understand the "character" of the people that are currently allowed to vote in this country. It is a rather sad scenario that I hope is corrected in my lifetime.

2007-07-02 17:14:33 · answer #5 · answered by Chains 4 · 1 1

People vote how they want for many reasons. The fact is that none of them have to justify their votes to anyone. It is a secret ballot for a reason.

Your little tirade about Bush's I.Q. versus the I.Q. of other Presidents is completely wrong by the way. There was a hoax email going around a while back that had that same information in it. It was thoroughly debunked. You should look in to things before asserting them as facts.

2007-07-02 16:45:29 · answer #6 · answered by anarchisthippy 3 · 2 0

IQ has very little to do with ability to run a country. Jimmy Carter was outright brilliant and was one of the worst presidents we ever had, as demonstrated by the economy and foreign affairs when he left office.

Perhaps people thought (Rightly so, in my opinion) that he was better than the democratic opposition? You voted your way, I voted mine and the majority decided in still another way by returning him to office. Apparently, many disagreed with your evaluation that he sucked. That's the way it works, right or wrong in your opinion or mine.

2007-07-02 16:37:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

You should have seen the idiot loser the Democrats ran against Bush. A complete zero, a lying sack of manure.

Oh, and there is no history of presidents taking the IQ exam, so you've been suckered into believing yet another false claim against Bush.

2007-07-02 16:33:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Only because I didn't want to change leaders in the middle of his war. Only time I ever voted for a Republican President.

2007-07-02 16:31:38 · answer #9 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 1 0

No one really likes the bleeding heart liberals. Kerry still sucks kind of like disco.

2007-07-02 17:21:06 · answer #10 · answered by Don`tTreadOnMe 2 · 2 0

Yes, Bill Clinton is smart, but when he got in trouble, I believe he was thinking with the smaller head, not the larger one. As for Bush's re-election? I think some people thought it would be unfair to any other canidate to shove Bush's mess into their hands. It was Bush's fault, and he should have to clean it up. *shrug*

2007-07-02 16:35:05 · answer #11 · answered by Pepper F 3 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers