Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patb
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.
It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.
As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.
I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.
Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]
Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASPReagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.
It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.
As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.
I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.
Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]
Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASPReagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.
It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.
As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.
I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.
Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]
Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASPReagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.
It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.
As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.
I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.
Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]
Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASPReagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.[/quote]Pat: I don’t think any person in their right mind would consider Dubya a conservative.
It terms of true “conservatism”, the closest the Republican Party has come in terms of a President has been Reagan and in terms of a candidate was Barry Goldwater. Reagan admittedly strayed, which is why I used the term “closest”.
As far as IQs go: I’m not sure I get that relative IQ has to do with anything. Using your description of Reagan as an amiable dunce and Carter as smart as a whip, what does that mean in terms of comparing their Presidencies? To an objective, non-partisan observer, it would appear that Reagan’s Presidency (both terms) was far more successful than Carter’s.
I would also opine that Carter, regardless of intellect, has exposed his true nature and character, as evidenced by his various nonsensical utterances since his departure from the White House.
Lastly, McCain was not a child of privilege (note the proper spelling). Both his father and grandfather were admirals in the US Navy, not captains of industry. Undoubtedly, this went a long way to pushing John forward in the Navy and through USNA, regardless of his middling academics and performance.[/quote]
Well Bush had a 90% rating from the American Conservative Union
and was considered their guy.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/12062004.ASPReagan was conservative how? I’m sure his first wife had
some issues with his lifestyle conservatism. That would include
getting Nancy Davis pregnant before they got married.
Also Reagan Deficit spending? Where’s the conservatism there.Carter had trouble with the Iranians. Yeah. He wasn’t willing to
start a war over the Embassy crisis. He also wasn’t willing to sell
arms to the iranians (A Terrorist sponsoring state) to deal with
his hostage crisis like Reagan did. Carter didn’t handle problems
quite as well as he should have. He however was trying to
restructure these problems. He was poor at legislation which
hurt him. He didn’t understand how to move legislation like an LBJ
which really hurt his agenda.I’d say Carter has done well as a former president. Habitat for Humanity,
the Carter Institute. The international missions. He and Clinton have
been very effective as former presidents, Unlike Bush, Reagan or Bush junior. What did Reagan do after leaving office? Make a bunch of speeches
in japan for millions. Bush Senior got on the board of Carlisle.
Aside from Katrina relief, he hasn’t done anything humanitarian.And McCain? If you don’t think having 2 admirals in your family
doesn’t mean growing up a life of privelige, well, then
you are sadly disconnected from reality.Participant[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]
Carter was a Nuclear Engineer. Smart as a whip, just couldn’t step back and
work the big picture.Clinton was a rhodes scholar.
Kerry was quite bright, he was a polyglot and i’ve seen him speak.
Obama was on Law Review.
Bush Jr was an affirmative action baby. If he didn’t have his family he’d
have been some gas station clerk.Bush Sr was a sharp guy until he went mental.
Reagan was an amiable dunce.
Ike was super bright, one of the best. Not an academic like his brother,
but a supreme planner, thinker, manager. He’d have run IBM or GE if he
hadn’t run the war.Nixon was quite sharp, but just wasn’t able to separate the moral
aspects of his job.LBJ wasn’t bright, but was intensely political and wanted to make a better society.
LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama, these were guys who made themselves.
Bush 1 and 2, McCain, These were scions of wealth and privelige.
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.Participant[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]
Carter was a Nuclear Engineer. Smart as a whip, just couldn’t step back and
work the big picture.Clinton was a rhodes scholar.
Kerry was quite bright, he was a polyglot and i’ve seen him speak.
Obama was on Law Review.
Bush Jr was an affirmative action baby. If he didn’t have his family he’d
have been some gas station clerk.Bush Sr was a sharp guy until he went mental.
Reagan was an amiable dunce.
Ike was super bright, one of the best. Not an academic like his brother,
but a supreme planner, thinker, manager. He’d have run IBM or GE if he
hadn’t run the war.Nixon was quite sharp, but just wasn’t able to separate the moral
aspects of his job.LBJ wasn’t bright, but was intensely political and wanted to make a better society.
LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama, these were guys who made themselves.
Bush 1 and 2, McCain, These were scions of wealth and privelige.
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.Participant[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]
Carter was a Nuclear Engineer. Smart as a whip, just couldn’t step back and
work the big picture.Clinton was a rhodes scholar.
Kerry was quite bright, he was a polyglot and i’ve seen him speak.
Obama was on Law Review.
Bush Jr was an affirmative action baby. If he didn’t have his family he’d
have been some gas station clerk.Bush Sr was a sharp guy until he went mental.
Reagan was an amiable dunce.
Ike was super bright, one of the best. Not an academic like his brother,
but a supreme planner, thinker, manager. He’d have run IBM or GE if he
hadn’t run the war.Nixon was quite sharp, but just wasn’t able to separate the moral
aspects of his job.LBJ wasn’t bright, but was intensely political and wanted to make a better society.
LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama, these were guys who made themselves.
Bush 1 and 2, McCain, These were scions of wealth and privelige.
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.Participant[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]
Carter was a Nuclear Engineer. Smart as a whip, just couldn’t step back and
work the big picture.Clinton was a rhodes scholar.
Kerry was quite bright, he was a polyglot and i’ve seen him speak.
Obama was on Law Review.
Bush Jr was an affirmative action baby. If he didn’t have his family he’d
have been some gas station clerk.Bush Sr was a sharp guy until he went mental.
Reagan was an amiable dunce.
Ike was super bright, one of the best. Not an academic like his brother,
but a supreme planner, thinker, manager. He’d have run IBM or GE if he
hadn’t run the war.Nixon was quite sharp, but just wasn’t able to separate the moral
aspects of his job.LBJ wasn’t bright, but was intensely political and wanted to make a better society.
LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama, these were guys who made themselves.
Bush 1 and 2, McCain, These were scions of wealth and privelige.
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.Participant[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]
Carter was a Nuclear Engineer. Smart as a whip, just couldn’t step back and
work the big picture.Clinton was a rhodes scholar.
Kerry was quite bright, he was a polyglot and i’ve seen him speak.
Obama was on Law Review.
Bush Jr was an affirmative action baby. If he didn’t have his family he’d
have been some gas station clerk.Bush Sr was a sharp guy until he went mental.
Reagan was an amiable dunce.
Ike was super bright, one of the best. Not an academic like his brother,
but a supreme planner, thinker, manager. He’d have run IBM or GE if he
hadn’t run the war.Nixon was quite sharp, but just wasn’t able to separate the moral
aspects of his job.LBJ wasn’t bright, but was intensely political and wanted to make a better society.
LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama, these were guys who made themselves.
Bush 1 and 2, McCain, These were scions of wealth and privelige.
as for conservative traditional values, where does Invading Iraq
fit in there.Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]I think Obama was a foreign exchange student at Harvard. [/quote]
Well Thinking isn’t the verb of choice for what you are doing in this sentence.
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]I think Obama was a foreign exchange student at Harvard. [/quote]
Well Thinking isn’t the verb of choice for what you are doing in this sentence.
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]I think Obama was a foreign exchange student at Harvard. [/quote]
Well Thinking isn’t the verb of choice for what you are doing in this sentence.
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]I think Obama was a foreign exchange student at Harvard. [/quote]
Well Thinking isn’t the verb of choice for what you are doing in this sentence.
-
AuthorPosts
