George Bush A.) continued mental degradation or?

Question

B.) retarded since birth and this is just the first time he's really had to express himself or C.) Evil genius?

Answer 1

not retarded, just not bright. He's a little smarter than Gore, a little less bright than Kerry but has more integrity. Unfortunately Bush is stubborn and bullheaded

Answer 2

I had a penpal in Italy who wondered how we could possibly choose an ex-alcoholic as our president. Didn't we know alcoholism causes brain damage? I hadn't heard that before, but it would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

I don't think Bush is -retarded-. I don't think he's really brain damaged either. The problem with Bush is that he's never really done any thinking about anything. He just floated through school. He still doesn't seem to realize that he was put ahead of a long waiting list to get into the Texas Air Nat'l Guard. Then he went into business and was supported by his dad's rich friends who wanted favors, and apparently he doesn't realize that either. In fact, he never earned an honest buck in his entire life!

Everything in Bush's life came so easy for him that he thought being president would be easy too. He approached it with the same sense of entitlement he's had all his life.

And the party loved him because he had a recognizable name, but also because had no real political philosophy of his own so he would just read what was put in front of him.

The proof of this is how Bush is completely unable to do an unscripted interview. He can't just show up on a talk show and explain his ideas without the questions being submitted in advance and him being completely briefed on the 'right' answers.

Answer 3

In other words what you're asking is if either Bush acts dumb, or if he simply is dumb. Personally, I don't think any leader would gain any sort of advantage by deliberately encouraging people to think he's incompetent, so I don't think it's a political tactic of some kind. If you read Machiavelli's timeless principles in his book "The Prince", it pretty conclusively argues that a successful leader should always at least *appear* to 100% confident and secure in himself as well as appear to be virtuous, competent, and in control (even if he really isn't), because for him to put any personal weaknesses on display would surely lead to loss of public support and that's always a bad thing. Clinton was a bullshit artist, but at least he was good at it and usually managed to come off looking smart, compassionate, and dignified in public even though his personal virtue and motives had much left to be desired. In any case, it's pretty obvious that the guy WILL NOT or CANNOT give a simple answer to a simple question. During any public meeting, 95% of what comes out of his mouth are just "space filler" words where he dances around on complete random tangents and won't stick to the damn subject. Even Bush claims that he's a terrible speaker, but the way I see it being a good speaker is one of the requirements for being a good leader.

Answer 4

I always figured that he's fairly dim, a poor leader, and a good follower. It's obvious that a couple of his dogs have wandered off of his front porch in the time he's been President. His own sloppy hubris, as much as anything else, has caused him to lose much of his ability to rationalize.

He's no evil genius, but is surrounded by people who are much brighter than he is -- the PNAC bunch who is pulling his strings. He's having a bit of a rough time since his cabal is quitting one by one, either in scandal or out of disgust.

Answer 5

George W. Bush is mad and evil man who is above all is not too bright. But American people voted for him twice because George Bush is a true reflection of America and Americans. American people do not deserve any better leader than Bush. More likely he will change their constitution and will remain as their president for indefinite period of time. I think it will be just great for US and for Americans. Don't you agree with me, brave American people?

Answer 6

Don't you folk love the tactics used by unethical people?

They accuse someone else of being retarded and evil by calling them names, treating them as "guilty until proved innocent", spreading unfounded rumors, and then wonder why we have a problem with it?

Don't any of these people have any skill with legitimate disagreement, dissent, and protest without resorting to crime and sedition to make their point?

Is this you? Is this the ethical and intelligent response of the opposition to President Bush's policies? Personal attacks, like the attacks on President Clinton in the last decade?

Real great company you keep.

Answer 7

George W. Bush is sociopath.

A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath can, he just doesn't care.

Answer 8

wow i think that you are
a fag and that you need
to settle down. President
Bush is a great president
and he is doing what he
knows best. and i agree
with him expecailly about
the war. just to let you know
my Dad is a top secret
National Guard man and
you don't need to talk ****
about the war or Bush because
if anyone i should be against
all of this but im not. so get
over your crap!

Answer 9

C. Just plain evil.

Answer 10

Well his IQ beats yours by far and he beat out all of the democrats in two elections so where does that put you and the democratic party?