[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]Both parties have radical elements. Both parties have those who have those who buy into extreme ideas and conspiratorial theories.

However, there is a difference between the parties with regard to extremism. The Republicans don’t put those types in positions of power. [/quote]

Who were Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove?

Ever heard of Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME? Google those 2 terms together.[/quote]

You may not be happy with the previous administration. I understand that. I wasn’t happy with much that occurred also. Still, very few folks would consider any of the above radicals, in the same way those close to and even working in the Obama administration are considered radical. And this isn’t just a left/right judgment. It is a judgment based upon the traditional values of this country.

If you consider those you named above as radicals then you also must consider most of founding fathers radicals as well as many of those who have lead and built this country radicals. Clearly, the views of those who founded this country and of those who wrote our constitution are more in line with the Bushies than the changes being done by administrative or judicial fiat of the current left.

In fact, imo, JFK views were more in line with the Bushies and today’s Republications than today’s current Dems.[/quote]

So did you google Rumsfeld and ASPARTAME?[/quote]

I’m not really a fan of Rumsfeld or asparame. So no, I have not. I would not be surprised if he was involved in something not above board. And I am sure he is not alone.

There are some really respected folks who have done some pretty bad things. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. FDR interred Americans of Japanese descent. Truman dropped the bomb.

Is it possible Rumsfeld did something dastardly?

Yes.

I still would not consider him an extremist of the type Obama is now putting in charge.

[felix]

Wow.

I don’t know exactly the particulars of some of the stuff you posted. However, to consider those you named above as whackos says plenty about you. You and many others may not agree with their politics but they are hardly whackos.

[felix]

Wow.

I don’t know exactly the particulars of some of the stuff you posted. However, to consider those you named above as whackos says plenty about you. You and many others may not agree with their politics but they are hardly whackos.

[felix]

Wow.

I don’t know exactly the particulars of some of the stuff you posted. However, to consider those you named above as whackos says plenty about you. You and many others may not agree with their politics but they are hardly whackos.

[felix]

Wow.

I don’t know exactly the particulars of some of the stuff you posted. However, to consider those you named above as whackos says plenty about you. You and many others may not agree with their politics but they are hardly whackos.

[felix]

Wow.

I don’t know exactly the particulars of some of the stuff you posted. However, to consider those you named above as whackos says plenty about you. You and many others may not agree with their politics but they are hardly whackos.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]

Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]

Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.

The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.

What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.

Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.

Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]

Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?

McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.

Reagan – Actor. Enough said.

POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.

Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.

Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.

I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]

First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
[/quote]

Maybe he got good enough GPA in college and LSAT?[/quote]

So now you agree with me when I said one doesn’t have to be the best intellect but only needs to be good enough to do the job.

The question with regard to Obama’s enrollment in Harvard is whether his grades and LSAT score would have been good enough for a white man to get into Harvard.

If we didn’t have different standards we would all know the answer to that question.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]

Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]

Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.

The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.

What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.

Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.

Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]

Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?

McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.

Reagan – Actor. Enough said.

POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.

Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.

Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.

I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]

First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
[/quote]

Maybe he got good enough GPA in college and LSAT?[/quote]

So now you agree with me when I said one doesn’t have to be the best intellect but only needs to be good enough to do the job.

The question with regard to Obama’s enrollment in Harvard is whether his grades and LSAT score would have been good enough for a white man to get into Harvard.

If we didn’t have different standards we would all know the answer to that question.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]

Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]

Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.

The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.

What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.

Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.

Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]

Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?

McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.

Reagan – Actor. Enough said.

POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.

Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.

Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.

I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]

First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
[/quote]

Maybe he got good enough GPA in college and LSAT?[/quote]

So now you agree with me when I said one doesn’t have to be the best intellect but only needs to be good enough to do the job.

The question with regard to Obama’s enrollment in Harvard is whether his grades and LSAT score would have been good enough for a white man to get into Harvard.

If we didn’t have different standards we would all know the answer to that question.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]

Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]

Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.

The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.

What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.

Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.

Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]

Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?

McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.

Reagan – Actor. Enough said.

POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.

Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.

Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.

I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]

First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
[/quote]

Maybe he got good enough GPA in college and LSAT?[/quote]

So now you agree with me when I said one doesn’t have to be the best intellect but only needs to be good enough to do the job.

The question with regard to Obama’s enrollment in Harvard is whether his grades and LSAT score would have been good enough for a white man to get into Harvard.

If we didn’t have different standards we would all know the answer to that question.

[felix]

[quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix][quote=dbapig][quote=felix]
Too many on the left seem to believe that anybody that doesn’t agree with them is not smart enough to know what is best for this country or even for oneself.[/quote]

Replace the “LEFT” with “RIGHT”. It goes both ways.[/quote]

Perhaps, you’re correct on this but I only see the media portraying one-side as dumb.

The past few elections we have been told the Harvard educated; Clinton, Kerry and Obama were geniuses but Bush, McCain and even going back a ways, Reagan were dummies.

What’s ironic about this is that Bush is the only president we’ve ever had with degrees from both Harvard and Yale. Yet he has been portrayed as a idiot more so than any president in my lifetime.

Personally I don’t know who has the highest IQ nor do I care. One doesn’t have to be a genius to be a good president. One has to be a leader. And one has to surround himself with smart capable folks.

Lastly, there is another difference. Most conservative initiatives have been those of traditional values. They aren’t trying to reshape this country but to preserve our traditions. That usually meant less government intrusion into our lives instead of more.[/quote]

Bush Jr – I don’t know many who think he got into Yale and Harvard because of his intelligence. It’s family connection don’t ya think? What was his GPA in Yale?

McCain – Not as bad as Bush but his ranking in Naval Academy was close to the last. And he wrecked 5 US Navy planes (granted one was in combat) before he was done with it.

Reagan – Actor. Enough said.

POTUS has to be a leader AND a pretty smart person. Saying high IQ isn’t required of POTUS is not too smart.

Clinton – a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University
Obama – Harvard Law Review editor. As much as we don’t like lawyers, you have to be pretty smart to get there.

Let’s be honest. Of the POTUS and POTUS candidates from the last 2 – 3 decades, Dems pretty much dominate GOP in the intelligence/IQ/achievement dept. Except Bush Sr.

I’m sure GOP (the party of rich, powerful, CEOs) can do better. Or does GOP just want someone as POTUS that rich and powerful can manipulate easily?[/quote]

First, can you tell me how Obama got into Harvard?
[/quote]

Maybe he got good enough GPA in college and LSAT?[/quote]

So now you agree with me when I said one doesn’t have to be the best intellect but only needs to be good enough to do the job.

The question with regard to Obama’s enrollment in Harvard is whether his grades and LSAT score would have been good enough for a white man to get into Harvard.

If we didn’t have different standards we would all know the answer to that question.

[Author]

Posts