Firestarter 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 What can explain [President Bush's] popularity? Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq? Of how he has fortified our constitutional freedoms with the USA Patriot Act? Of how he has bolstered our economy? Of how he has protected our environment? Perhaps they've been impressed with the president's personal integrity and the articulation of his grand vision for America? Is that likely? Granted, there are certain subsections of the American polity that have substantially benefited from this presidency. Millionaires and charismatic Christians have accrued either material or spiritual fortification from Bush's administration. But surely these two groups are a small minority of the population. What, then, can account for so many people being so supportive of the president? The answer, I'm afraid, is the factor that dare not speak its name. It's the factor that no one talks about. The pollsters don't ask it, the media don't report it, the voters don't discuss it... It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people - sometimes through no fault of their own - are just not very bright. It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all - far above all - they don't think. The S factor explains Bush's popularity by Neal Starkman NB: all emphases mine. I really don't know where to begin. The column stands on its own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Like I said earlier, people tend to want to believe that everyone else is stupid. Don't even try and pretend that this is a "liberal" characteristic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Like I said earlier, people tend to want to believe that everyone else is stupid. Don't even try and pretend that this is a "liberal" characteristic. How come I never hear of Democratic Presidents being viewed as being stupid, while it seems to be a trait of an awful lot of Republican Presidents? I didn't see any phony stories about Clinton having 1/2 the IQ of Bush Sr. widely circulated. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Like I said earlier, people tend to want to believe that everyone else is stupid. Don't even try and pretend that this is a "liberal" characteristic. How come I never hear of Democratic Presidents being viewed as being stupid, while it seems to be a trait of an awful lot of Republican Presidents? I didn't see any phony stories about Clinton having 1/2 the IQ of Bush Sr. widely circulated. -=Mike But that completely misses the point, as this snippet makes no mention of the mental acuity (or lack thereof) of the President himself. Have you taken a good look at society lately? There are a LOT of people making a LOT of stupid decisions out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Like I said earlier, people tend to want to believe that everyone else is stupid. Don't even try and pretend that this is a "liberal" characteristic. How come I never hear of Democratic Presidents being viewed as being stupid, while it seems to be a trait of an awful lot of Republican Presidents? I didn't see any phony stories about Clinton having 1/2 the IQ of Bush Sr. widely circulated. -=Mike But that completely misses the point, as this snippet makes no mention of the mental acuity (or lack thereof) of the President himself. Have you taken a good look at society lately? There are a LOT of people making a LOT of stupid decisions out there. But the central thesis of his column was that Americans vote for Bush because they're stupid (and I suppose few people read his column for the same reason). BX commented that the belief that everybody else is stupid is not a liberal one --- I simply pointed out that it tends to flow more from them than from conservatives. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 I look at it this way, that there are a lot of people (on the left and right), who hear a couple of soundbites from someone or other, go and vote, then sit back down and watch the Osbournes until the next vote. Thats what I see as one of the worst characteristics of the general public, apathy and being fooled by a couple of snappy soundbites and events. Is it really that hard to go out and learn about candidates and what they stand for? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Pot. Kettle. Black Neal needs to look in a mirror, or check out the grass on his lawn. Sheesh... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 People say that Bush is stupid due to his verbal flubs those first few years. And this. But I suppose you have a point, Mike. It seems to me though that more people accuse Hilary and Co. of being subversive and such. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 The fact of the matter is, most people that vote on EITHER side of the political fence, do so knowing very little about politics in general. I consider myself a little more enlightened then your average person but can still admit that I don't know shit compared to some on even this very message board on certain issues. This is a factor that comes with our "right" to vote, and no I don't want it to be messed with, however I would really like the majority of voters to put in a little more time into their decision, whether it be a democrat/republican/third party. I don't know many people that can honestly say they have looked past the evening news as a source for who will get their vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 But now that I think about it, I see this in conservative circles too. All the hubub about the "liberal media" seems to have the conservative portion worried. Is it because you are afraid people will be too stupid to distinguish the bias, and thus be more inclined to vote for liberal issues? I know that seems like a rash judgement, but I see little reason for the "liberal media" controversy otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 The fact of the matter is, most people that vote on EITHER side of the political fence, do so knowing very little about politics in general. I consider myself a little more enlightened then your average person but can still admit that I don't know shit compared to some on even this very message board on certain issues. This is a factor that comes with our "right" to vote, and no I don't want it to be messed with, however I would really like the majority of voters to put in a little more time into their decision, whether it be a democrat/republican/third party. I don't know many people that can honestly say they have looked past the evening news as a source for who will get their vote. This was what I was trying to say, but Mike put it better Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Most people figure out what they're going to vote for first and come up with a rationale second anyway. The idea that this only occurs on one side of the political spectrum is just about the dumbest thing I ever did hear. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 That study of the Presidents' IQ's was based on their public speeches. Clinton was obviously much better in that area than Bush. Therefore, if we were to assume that Bush's misstatements and mispronouncemens were representative of his intelligence as a whole, it would be very easy to assume that he has a low IQ. Truthfully, however, I don't think he is a stupid man. I just don't think he's very good at speaking when all his words are scripted for him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 9, 2004 That study of the Presidents' IQ's was based on their public speeches. Clinton was obviously much better in that area than Bush. Therefore, if we were to assume that Bush's misstatements and mispronouncemens were representative of his intelligence as a whole, it would be very easy to assume that he has a low IQ. Truthfully, however, I don't think he is a stupid man. I just don't think he's very good at speaking when all his words are scripted for him. Thing is, the study never existed and was done by a group that didn't exist. Being a good speaker does not make one a bright man. Clinton seemed to lack common sense, to be honest. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Joseph 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Bush in a small group handles himself well...This I know, and it was a situation that wasn't scripted. Face it, some people are great with large media things and others are not. And...its not like we should necessarily rank people higher just because they can spout out nice cliches on a heartbeat... Of course, then if I actually think anyone means anything they say...eh, Vote Libertarian. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Thing is, the study never existed and was done by a group that didn't exist. Being a good speaker does not make one a bright man. Clinton seemed to lack common sense, to be honest. -=Mike Where did the study come from, then? The only time I ever really heard about it was on Howard Stern (which probably should have been a clue right there). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 It was a complete fake. Although it did lead to this little gem... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
k thx 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 The only stupidity in this thread is Marney thinking a sensationalist pro-liberal piece has any bearing on "Current Events". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted January 9, 2004 Of course there are extremist liberals who make stupid comments. That doesn't mean that there aren't people like that on the conservative side. I give you these quotes: "A half-ass, middle of the road, agnostic moral attitude betrays what is good, Conservatism, and furthers the cause of evil, Liberalism." "Liberals will now be known here......as “Lesions.” The scabby, infectious sores thread through the fabric (skin if you want) of our society exposing America to dis-ease." "While liberalism -- although at one time meaning man created freedom for himself by using his mind and thinking to better his life -- is, today, simply at its basest, most despicable bottom line, a calculated, sophistic and baneful assault on the Creator as the Highest ideal and man’s ability to think and provide for himself." Who is responsible for these quotes? Limbaugh? Coulter? Hannity? No.............. Don't think that one person's opinion represents an entire political party. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 What is he trying to say? I can only figure out one of two things. 1) Defeat is inevitable for the Democrats so don't try. OR 2) These people shouldn't have the right to vote. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 What is he trying to say? You don't understand because you're STUPID! Duh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted January 10, 2004 Thing is, the study never existed and was done by a group that didn't exist. Being a good speaker does not make one a bright man. Clinton seemed to lack common sense, to be honest. -=Mike Where did the study come from, then? The only time I ever really heard about it was on Howard Stern (which probably should have been a clue right there). It never existed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted January 10, 2004 The rankings on this "study" should have given it away. 182 .. William J. Clinton (D) 175 .. James E. Carter (D) 174 .. John F. Kennedy (D) 155 .. Richard M. Nixon ® 147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) 132 .. Harry Truman (D) 126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower ® 121 .. Gerald Ford ® 105 .. Ronald Reagan ® 098 .. George HW Bush ® 091 .. George W. Bush ® Mmmmhmmm... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 (edited) Funny how this column is found in the Seattle Post-INTELLIGENCER. Reminds me of the retarded study Berkeley did about what makes a conservative tick. Part of me wants to believe this column is based in sarcasm, but sadly I doubt it... Edited January 10, 2004 by kkktookmybabyaway Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 I'm surprised that Marney puts this stuff on the board. He's a fucking wackjob. Get over it. He's a blithering idiot blinded by his own stupidity. Yippee. Give me five minutes and I'd put up a good "article" that would hail Bush as the President that God appointed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted January 10, 2004 How come I never hear of Democratic Presidents being viewed as being stupid, while it seems to be a trait of an awful lot of Republican Presidents? Bah. Clinton was always shown as being stupid. Maybe not to the extent Bush is, but it was there. To deny it is crazy. Edit: Not to mention being portrayed as a sex obsessed maniac. Not that this wasn't humorous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted January 10, 2004 Edit: Not to mention being portrayed as a sex obsessed maniac. Not that this wasn't humorous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 10, 2004 How come I never hear of Democratic Presidents being viewed as being stupid, while it seems to be a trait of an awful lot of Republican Presidents? Bah. Clinton was always shown as being stupid. Maybe not to the extent Bush is, but it was there. To deny it is crazy. Edit: Not to mention being portrayed as a sex obsessed maniac. Not that this wasn't humorous. Who called Clinton dumb? Not the GOP. Definitely not the press. Heck, they couldn't stop falling over themselves congratulating him for being so darned brilliant. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 Funny how this column is found in the Seattle Post-INTELLIGENCER. Reminds me of the retarded study Berkeley did about what makes a conservative tick. I got partway through the article and stopped. The author has no credentials other than a "resident of Seattle." This is not a story to be tossed aside lightly. It is to be thrown with great force. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 10, 2004 Edit: Not to mention being portrayed as a sex obsessed maniac. Not that this wasn't humorous. You know, it's not documented anywhere that he did anything that she was uncomfortable about. She was even flirting with him. "Cmere, big boy!" should not be confused with "No! No! Don't! Ohh!" The spin on this issue has always made it sound positively scandalous. How about a little personal responsibility from the woman at the intern desk? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
