Is George Bush smart or stupid?

[sonofone]

Is George Bush smart or stupid? and why?

[Lights]

A 2.35 grade point average? I wouldn't say he is stupid, but I also wouldn't say he is anything near smart. I believe he has failed at every business he has ever tried to run, so I wouldn't exactly call him a good businessman either. But it's hard to tell from his presidency how smart he is, because it's likely that he hasn't been pulling all the strings.

[AgentofGaming]

well he did get re-elected didn't he?

of course he does have a team behind him, as they say a weak leader can be compensated by a good minister/election crew.

he also could be a puppet manipulated by somebody very powerful in the background, but that'd be pure speculation.

[blueeyedsusan]

Don't you see Bush as a marionette with Cheney looking like WC Fields holding the strings?

[Bossy Mom]

I voted for George Bush because the alternatives were so awful. I'll probably have to vote for John McCain because the alternative will also be awful. The establishments of the parties usually make the choices for us.

[drek996]

As far as pure intellectual ability he doesn't have what I think is necessary for our president, but he is smart enough to get what he wants done...

[Riverratt]

I voted for George Bush because the alternatives were so awful. I'll probably have to vote for John McCain because the alternative will also be awful. The establishments of the parties usually make the choices for us.

That shows just how BAD the candidates truly are...When you go to vote, your voting AGAINST someone..NOT FOR, someone :yuck:

I don't agree with GWB, on MANY issues, but he has "whooped" the Democrats every time they come up against him.

They call him names, scream and whine, and he still kicks them square in the chops

It is funny how they run him down as an blithering fool, and an idiot, but when it comes down to it, they cave to him like a house of cards in a hurricane.

[AgentofGaming]

I voted for George Bush because the alternatives were so awful. I'll probably have to vote for John McCain because the alternative will also be awful. The establishments of the parties usually make the choices for us.

That's the drawback of a two-party system.

Of course the drawback for a multi-party system is that there will never be a majority government.

As for majorities I'm not sure if a party whose motions are unstoppable is the best of representing everyone.

[Riverratt]

Of course the drawback for a multi-party system is that there will never be a majority government.


That's a good thing....GRIDLOCK is a friend of freedom. When they are too busy bickering with each other, they are distracted from pilfering our paychecks, and passing laws that RESTRICT our freedom.

[AgentofGaming]

That's a good thing....GRIDLOCK is a friend of freedom. When they are too busy bickering with each other, they are distracted from pilfering our paychecks, and passing laws that RESTRICT our freedom.

Ah but is it a good thing that an entity claiming to be 51% Enforce something that 60% don't agree with?
Parties that use the my way or the highway tend to get money wasted in things the majority don't even support.

Look at Finland it's split 3 ways To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yet they have the arguably the most efficient and best perceived government.

[Riverratt]

Nope I take Gridlock....Keep's em' out of my Gun Case, and Health Care....

Or the next best thing, "out on perpetual winter break"

[AgentofGaming]

Nope I take Gridlock....Keep's em' out of my Gun Case, and Health Care....

Or the next best thing, "out on perpetual winter break"

I suppose you're American? Since it's kind of weird for people in other places to like guns. :rolleyes:

I guess gridlock can hold back bad decisions, but it also holds back good decisions.
Something on a parallel, as a professor I had once said: "Conservatives resist all change even if it's good, the Liberals(ours is progressive) accept all change even if it's bad".

[Riverratt]

No, I am LIBERTARIAN, I find Democrats, and Republicans BOTH abhorrent.

Democrats, tend to be Communists, and Republicans tend to be like the Democrats of the 1960's

As long as those two groups are in power, let Gridlock reign supreme.

And what is weird about owning firearms? It takes the police 45 minutes to get where I live, I MUST be able to protect my family. I find firearms are the most effective means of doing just that.

[Jezebel]

The discussion about guns has been moved to this thread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Octavianus Caesar]

I think people under-estimate him. Case in point.

prior to the 2006 election congress began harping on Bush about how he is running everything from wiretapping to the war. Now those issues are not coming up and I think the reason for it is, Bush out manovered congress.

He allowed the "handling of the war" to become an issue, which put congress in democratic hands, then when they won, he allowed Rumsfield to retire (something he would not accept till that point). Then he changed course in Iraq, implenting the "surge".

Since many of the issues against Bush was coming from his own party, he nullified that with a Democratic win by allowing them to hammer the war. Now that the war/surge is "working" he now has nullified the democrats, in essence making them a "lame duck" congress.

By making an issue of the war and then changing course afterwards to a "winning" strategy he silenced his critics.

[brewmaster]

Both him and his wife have the same look in their eyes as a dog I once owned. Just enough of a spark behind there to start a fire, not enough to put it out.

[wise]

I voted for George Bush because the alternatives were so awful. I'll probably have to vote for John McCain because the alternative will also be awful. The establishments of the parties usually make the choices for us.

I'm with you on this one, and I can't stand McCain. We're supposed to have power by virtue of the vote, but if there's no one worthy of the vote we are becoming increasingly powerless. I'm very disillusioned with politics; it is becoming a scourge that we need cleansed from, so to speak. I don't have a lot of hope for the future. Negative and cynical, I know.

[Rick]

My opinion: George Bush is smart. He just cannot think on his feet.

[Mr Zip]

I voted for GW twice, and have voted republican since Ronald Reagan. I'm a staunch economic conservative and socially liberal. Its what makes sense to me and always has.

It's hard to defend George Bush. He really does come across as a bit of a poke, and his manner of speech isnt the most inspiring. To get where he is, you can't say the guy isnt smart, but I understand why people don't agree with him. He's not a great or slick politician, but that doesnt mean he's not thinking about what he wants to do with the country.

[Riverratt]

I'm with you on this one, and I can't stand McCain. We're supposed to have power by virtue of the vote, but if there's no one worthy of the vote we are becoming increasingly powerless. I'm very disillusioned with politics; it is becoming a scourge that we need cleansed from, so to speak. I don't have a lot of hope for the future. Negative and cynical, I know.

its OUR fault...When we (as a nation) figured out we could "enrich" ourselves, by voting for people that promise "to give us stuff". Our collective IQ of a nation is very VERY low, because of this, a politician can wave "free health care" or name one of any other "social programs" in our face, and like lemmings, will go vote for them. We "respond" to the battle cries of "its for the children" and "sensible"....When those terms are used, 60% of Americans brains turn OFF, and they automatically vote for it, after all, if the don't, they must not like the children, or their just NOT sensible.

We are doomed, the typical American voter does NOT care about what is good for the nation, just what is good for themselves, on a PERSONAL level..

In short, we, as a nation, are very spoiled, and selfish.

[brewmaster]

He's not a great or slick politician, but that doesnt mean he's not thinking about what he wants to do with the country.

How he can further run it into the ground, while making his friends even more filthy rich? I guess that does require some intelligence.

[Riverratt]

How he can further run it into the ground, while making his friends even more filthy rich? I guess that does require some intelligence.


I also wonder, if he is so stupid, why can't the Democrats "deal with him"...Why do they bow down every time he wants to pass legislation???

Why can't their best and brightest, cannot defeat him??

What does that say about THEM?

Keep underestimating the man, he will continue sticking the proverbial boot in their "rear ends".

[Mr Zip]

How he can further run it into the ground, while making his friends even more filthy rich? I guess that does require some intelligence.

I guess I can tell who you voted for, and thats fine. If you want to go into economic theory we can do that.

[sonofone]

Mr Zip, I'm not an economist, so I am lacking in knowledge but what is the economic sense behind George Bush?

[Mr Zip]

Im new to the forum, and I quite like it here, so maybe its best I stay away from political arguments so as not to get run out of town on a shingle.

I guess what I mean to say is that the economic sense of GW is consistent with other republicans. I guess its whether you believe in that or not, and either way is fine.

I actually am one of the few that likes the 2 party system, or at least accepts it for what it is. Theres more than a few trains of thought in the country politically, and I'm not sure having ONE party have its own way on every issue to the end would be a good thing. its a natural in a democratic system of government.

[Lights]

Im new to the forum, and I quite like it here, so maybe its best I stay away from political arguments so as not to get run out of town on a shingle.

I guess what I mean to say is that the economic sense of GW is consistent with other republicans. I guess its whether you believe in that or not, and either way is fine.

I actually am one of the few that likes the 2 party system, or at least accepts it for what it is. Theres more than a few trains of thought in the country politically, and I'm not sure having ONE party have its own way on every issue to the end would be a good thing. its a natural in a democratic system of government.

What makes you think we have a 2 party system? It's the Republicrats all the way.

[Mr Zip]

I think that because when I go and vote, the 2 main influencial parties are democrats and republicans. I think theres some other good parties in there too, but they don't have the power or influence yet that the other 2 parties have.

[Lights]

I think that because when I go and vote, the 2 main influencial parties are democrats and republicans. I think theres some other good parties in there too, but they don't have the power or influence yet that the other 2 parties have.

You know a lot of them switch back and forth between loyalties. They don't care about the morals or values they preach, only the business and special interests that have backed them so they can be in power. America's two party system is just an illusion meant to divide America so that we don't notice the true agendas of the politicians we elect.

[Riverratt]

The Democrats, and Republicans are two roads, to the same place...

The Democrats, want to control you, because you are too irresponsible, to know, or do, what is best for yourself . So, elect us, and WE WILL PASS LAWS TO DICTATE to you, on how to live, since you obviously incapable of doing it yourself

The Republicans, want to control you, because you are easy lead astray by immoral temptations, to realize or even be able to DO, what is best for yourself. So, elect us, and WE WILL PASS LAWS TO DICTATE to you, on how to live, since you are obviously incapable of doing it yourself.

When I go to vote, I look for the one, WHO WILL LEAVE ME ALONE THE MOST....I don't want them to "do things for me"....To me, it does not matter if it is a "Left boot, or a Right boot, on my neck...it is STILL a boot.

[Mr Zip]

You know a lot of them switch back and forth between loyalties. They don't care about the morals or values they preach, only the business and special interests that have backed them so they can be in power. America's two party system is just an illusion meant to divide America so that we don't notice the true agendas of the politicians we elect.

I think some do, on both sides, but I agree. we need a few things. Mostly campaign reform and term limits. Its not THAT bad... we can see voting records, and compromises are made on bills to get the lesser of your evils turned into law.

I don't know of a better alternative tho. Reform is definately needed.

I'd hate to be a politican to be honest. To win, you have to owe someone for it, and your hands are out.

[meanlittlechimp]

The Democrats, and Republicans are two roads, to the same place...


You think we would have been in Iraq if the democrats were elected? You think we would have repealed privacy laws on the books under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts. You think we would have lost as much world credibility for electing the dumbest president in the entire history of the United States?

You think a democratic president would have tried to persecute NASA scientists for speaking on global warming? You think the democrats would have vetoed stem cell research to cater to the ignorant Christian Right, without whom Bush wouldn't have been elected? You think the Democrats would have spent tax payer money on creationism museums? The Democrats have lots of flaws, but to say it doesn't matter is naive.

[pavman]

A 2.35 grade point average

That's so not relevant, its laughable. What did he study? Where did he go to school? How drunk/high/whatever was he when he was in school?

GPA doesn't mean much once you get out. In fact, studies have shown the most successful people get around a 2.5 GPA...they're the mix of book smart and street smart. Well, at least that's what I've heard :thumbsup:

Hell, Jobs, Gates, and Ellyson all dropped out of school at some point. Gates in college, Ellyson I don't even think went to college. Talk about a flim flam shim sham bamboozle you college kids get sold....

[brewmaster]

You think we would have been in Iraq if the democrats weren't elected? You think we would have repealed privacy laws on the books under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts. You think we would have lost as much world credibility for electing the dumbest president in the entire history of the United States?

You think a democratic president would have tried to persecute NASA scientists for speaking on global warming? You think the democrats would have vetoed stem cell research to cater to the ignorant Christian Right, without whom Bush wouldn't have been elected? You think the Democrats would have spent tax payer money on creationism museums? The Democrats have lots of flaws, but to say it doesn't matter is naive.

Can't disagree with this at all. He spent money on a creationism museum? Really? That f###ing sucks.


Talk about a flim flam shim sham bamboozle you college kids get sold....

That is highly dependent on your field

[meanlittlechimp]

Can't disagree with this at all. He spent money on a creationism museum? Really? That f###ing sucks.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[iamnotspock]

The answer is: stupid

[integratedvelocity]

I used to think that a 2.35 GPA wasn't that bad for college, but I know that you have to work really hard today to get below a B- at Ivy Leagues. Though it might have been easier in the past...

Also, I think his SATs were in the 1200s and psychologists estimated his IQ at around 120.

Is there some reason that most politicians are of average or slightly above-average intelligence? I would think that a lot of smarter (academically) people would find politics frustrating. I mean, think about some poor person in Congress with an economics PhD trying to get along with either party. Of course, maybe there is one somewhere. But I doubt their party lets them out much ;)

[iamnotspock]

where'd you get 1200? I'd love to see the source for that. I think all politicians should have to post their SAT or IQ along with GPA and other relevant data.

[ginandsour]

That's so not relevant, its laughable. What did he study? Where did he go to school? How drunk/high/whatever was he when he was in school?

GPA doesn't mean much once you get out. In fact, studies have shown the most successful people get around a 2.5 GPA...they're the mix of book smart and street smart. Well, at least that's what I've heard :thumbsup:

Hell, Jobs, Gates, and Ellyson all dropped out of school at some point. Gates in college, Ellyson I don't even think went to college. Talk about a flim flam shim sham bamboozle you college kids get sold....

Ding ding ding, GPA has ZERO to do with intelligence. Low GPA is a mixture of apathy, not seeing grades as currency/not buying into the system grades are built around, studying the wrong subject, or simply having the knowledge that you're well connected enough to succeed without grades, which Bush is.





ginandsour added to this post, 3 minutes and 38 seconds later...

where'd you get 1200? I'd love to see the source for that. I think all politicians should have to post their SAT or IQ along with GPA and other relevant data.

Are you saying that someone's high school exam score has anything to do with leadership ability?

Your formula works fine until someone with policy you don't like has high scores.

[Lights]

where'd you get 1200? I'd love to see the source for that. I think all politicians should have to post their SAT or IQ along with GPA and other relevant data.

I think he is referring to this article.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

However, to put it into perspective, the average SAT scores for Yale freshmen at that time were about 670 in verbal, 705 in math. Bush's scores were 566 on the verbal and 640 on the math. So Bush was well below average for his class.

[futureperfect5]

Is George Bush smart or stupid? and why?
Would it matter? He is a politician ...

[iamnotspock]

I think he is referring to this article.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

However, to put it into perspective, the average SAT scores for Yale freshmen at that time were about 670 in verbal, 705 in math. Bush's scores were 566 on the verbal and 640 on the math. So Bush was well below average for his class.

Cool. Thanks for the link. I think this means he's not stupid. And it does matter. I don't want stupid leaders (which I'll define as below average intelligence). But according to that article Gore was a lot smarter. Which might have resulted in better decisions.

[lordrrr]

I voted for George Bush because the alternatives were so awful. I'll probably have to vote for John McCain because the alternative will also be awful. The establishments of the parties usually make the choices for us.

Same. I'm not old enough to vote, but if I could've I definantly wouldn't have picked Kerry. He was the worst.

[Lights]

Same. I'm not old enough to vote, but if I could've I definantly wouldn't have picked Kerry. He was the worst.

:laugh: He could not have done a worse job than George W. Bush.

[noirartist]

He isn't stupid. He just isn't an intellectual. He comes off as a common man, and not the rich, privileged, yaley that he really is.





noirartist added to this post, 10 minutes and 37 seconds later...

You think we would have been in Iraq if the democrats were elected? You think we would have repealed privacy laws on the books under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts. You think we would have lost as much world credibility for electing the dumbest president in the entire history of the United States?

You think a democratic president would have tried to persecute NASA scientists for speaking on global warming? You think the democrats would have vetoed stem cell research to cater to the ignorant Christian Right, without whom Bush wouldn't have been elected? You think the Democrats would have spent tax payer money on creationism museums? The Democrats have lots of flaws, but to say it doesn't matter is naive.

We were already in Iraq. No fly zones, sanctions, the Monica missiles, etc. In fact the bombing and violence against Iraq never ended between the first Gulf War and our most recent adventure in Iraq. To think that a Democratic President wouldn't take us into an unpopular war is naive. Lyndon Johnson anyone? How many of the Democrats in Congress supported Bush in his rush to war? The differences between the Democrats and the Republicans is more style than substance.

[Umbrex]

Is George Bush smart or stupid? and why?

he's dumb enough to be a TOOL TOOL TOOL!

[E148]

Bush is dumb as a post. He never should have been elected in 2000. His brother, Jeb Bush, may have helped him win in Florida, therefore the presidency.

He may have been elected because the war was not unpopular in 2004. We were probably still looking for WMDs and Saddam and his sons.

For the record, I never voted for Bush for governor let alone for President (in fact neither Bush).

The guy is a total waste of space and should be impeached and tried and convicted of treason. Most of his cabinet should go as well. Some already have, thankfully.

So far as I am concerned he is both stupid and a traitor.

[Darkmist]

That won't happen because the alternative is Cheney. A choice between a mud bog and quicksand. Ugh! And don't insult posts. He's only managing because of his father's connections and advisors that keep him afloat.

[E148]

A democratic president never started a war, pre-emptive attack. All wars, at least since WWI, a democratic president was in office and reacted to an attack. They did not guess about the motives of a country. They did not assume anything.

Some might say they waited intentionally knowing they were going to be attacked, so we would enter that particular war.

Regardless of this, I know that Winston Churchill allowed an English town to be bombed without evacuation because he did not want the Germans to know that they had broken the German code. So, I would not put it past any US president to sacrifice their citizens to join in a war.

By the way I am not a democrat either.





E148 added to this post, 1 minutes and 39 seconds later...

That won't happen because the alternative is Cheney. A choice between a mud bog and quicksand. Ugh! And don't insult posts. He's only managing because of his father's connections and advisors that keep him afloat.

Yes Cheney should go too. I said most of his cabinet should go -- either impeachment or fired. Most should be imprisoned, at least.





E148 added to this post, 16 minutes and 46 seconds later...

I used to think that a 2.35 GPA wasn't that bad for college, but I know that you have to work really hard today to get below a B- at Ivy Leagues. Though it might have been easier in the past...

Also, I think his SATs were in the 1200s and psychologists estimated his IQ at around 120.

Is there some reason that most politicians are of average or slightly above-average intelligence? I would think that a lot of smarter (academically) people would find politics frustrating. I mean, think about some poor person in Congress with an economics PhD trying to get along with either party. Of course, maybe there is one somewhere. But I doubt their party lets them out much ;)
That is about a C+ or just barely better than average. Looking at Yale's SATrequirements now it would appear that a typical SAT score would be 1400 for Math and verbal (700 each). It would be OK, maybe, if he picked good cabinet members. Some months ago I tried my best to ream his cabinet. I wrote something against each of them, contradicting most of what their website said about them. If I can get it from my other computer onto this one I will post it here.

Iq of 120?

By the way, Ron Paul is a medical doctor.

[Riverratt]

Bush is dumb as a post. He never should have been elected in 2000. His brother, Jeb Bush, may have helped him win in Florida, therefore the presidency.

He may have been elected because the war was not unpopular in 2004. We were probably still looking for WMDs and Saddam and his sons.

For the record, I never voted for Bush for governor let alone for President (in fact neither Bush).

The guy is a total waste of space and should be impeached and tried and convicted of treason. Most of his cabinet should go as well. Some already have, thankfully.

So far as I am concerned he is both stupid and a traitor.

Smarter than the Democratic voters in Florida....that could NOT even figure out how to punch out a ballot...:rolleyes:

[Darkmist]

Imprisoned has nice retaliatory ring to it, with a gag in his mouth to pay back for his ruination of our rights to free speech without fear of goverment sanctioned reprisal. The good ol'boys hold each others' backs though so he gets away with it. That's the only explanation I can fathom on how Clinton got impeached for sex and lying and Bush doesn't for the atrocities he's done to America and it's citizens.

Of course, he did get reelected which says something about people. And no, I did not vote for him. Ecch!

The ballots were rigged. Jeb anyone?

[E148]

Smarter than the Democratic voters in Florida....that could NOT even figure out how to punch out a ballot...:rolleyes:
Some of these were old folk and it was the election officials who had a hard time reading some of the ballots when they tried to count the ballots. Also, wasn't the main objection about computerized machines?





E148 added to this post, 37 minutes and 58 seconds later...

According to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts./msg30805.html

[Not sure of the bias of the source.]

"Bush's SAT score [1206] would roughly project to an IQ in the
125-130 range." This is the IQ range of a medical doctor (and those with PhDs).


By contrast "Richard Nixon (143 IQ)."



I still stand by what I said. IQs can and do change with age, generally going down some, at least. Some have gone up with age but that is rare. He may have been 'coached' for his SATs. Who knows.

[Nemesys]

So far as I am concerned he is both stupid and a traitor.

And a much better choice than those he ran against, who must have been even less intelligent and/or less patriotic than he for him to win. Twice.

Actually, that's not really true about who he ran against, but it is true about those who suppported the losing sides on both counts.

In 2000, well, it was the obnoxious, boring Gore vs. the unknown chuckling Cowboy, so you got the new devil you didn't know in exchange for the google-eyed devil you did. Tossed a coin, and it came up Cowboy Hat. Can't blame the voters that time - everyone loves a change! But in 2004, the hate machine against Bush was going so full-steam-bitter-obnoxious-poisonous-baloney-bleahh that it turned middle-of-the-road voters away from Kerry and right into Bush's lap.

Way to go! Great thinkin' there. Way to elect the guy you don't want by calling him a liar and then lying yourself far more often and more blatently and more obviously then he ever could! Please don't tell me INTJ's had anything to do with that dumb strategy - it had "Feel Good about Feeling Toxic" lose-once-more "FP" written all over it.

So, now it's a little late to be Bush-bitter. He was generally inneffective, and so conservatives are much more dissapointed in what he (didn't) get done than the libs are about what he did, but history is a narrative of contrasts, and so ol' Cowboy Hat is gonna have the odd distinction of looking better than the fellah before him... and the fellah after.

[Octavianus Caesar]

So, now it's a little late to be Bush-bitter. He was generally inneffective, and so conservatives are much more dissapointed in what he (didn't) get done than the libs are about what he did, but history is a narrative of contrasts, and so ol' Cowboy Hat is gonna have the odd distinction of looking better than the fellah before him... and the fellah after.

It is possible that bush could become a forgotten president, but with the books that are out to show how "inept" he is, I doubt that will happen. But that could also work against him and make him a forgotten president for that very reason.

But I think this goes to show that whomever becomes president is going to be dissected over and over again, and unless the American people squash the far right and far left, we will see Bill Clinton and George Bush contrast for along time by both sides.

[Antares]

Is George Bush smart or stupid? and why?

Oh no. The IQ controversy... Rumors have it that his IQ is 80 - 90, but it is predicted to be 120'ish. Not too smart, for sure, but certainly not stupid.

[deepFlow]

The question of whether Bush is smart or stupid I guess depends on what goals he has had inside his own brain (/ own administration) and then whether or not he has actually implemented those goals (as opposed to what goals are publically claimed at any given point in time) in a competent fashion or not.

Regardless of that largely academic question, though, I'd say he and his machine have done a pretty all-in-all stupid job of running this country, from me-a-lowly-citizen's point of view.

[Jgib5328]

Bush is dumb as a post. He never should have been elected in 2000. His brother, Jeb Bush, may have helped him win in Florida, therefore the presidency.

He may have been elected because the war was not unpopular in 2004. We were probably still looking for WMDs and Saddam and his sons.

For the record, I never voted for Bush for governor let alone for President (in fact neither Bush).

The guy is a total waste of space and should be impeached and tried and convicted of treason. Most of his cabinet should go as well. Some already have, thankfully.

So far as I am concerned he is both stupid and a traitor.

Lol he really isn't that dumb, I heard that he has an IQ of 122, which is above average. What grounds should we impeach him on? Because he is so dumb? He hasn't done anything worth being impeached on, and what are you talking about with treason? What has been some of his traitorous behavior?

I agree that he's not the greatest president, but I'm pretty sure he'd do better than you and most of you bush bashers. Do you realize how difficult it is being president? I guarantee you'd fail. You can complain all you want about the war, but the fact is, we are in there now, and we have to stay there for awhile longer.

[ginandsour]

As I've stated previously in the thread, the obsession some of you have with IQ scores is both hilarious and dangerous. Why not just have presidential candidates publish test scores, that'll take the thinking right out of the whole voting process for a few of you, lol.

I suppose I get offended because my IQ is "only" about 120-130ish.

[Jgib5328]

As I've stated previously in the thread, the obsession some of you have with IQ scores is both hilarious and dangerous. Why not just have presidential candidates publish test scores, that'll take the thinking right out of the whole voting process for a few of you, lol.

I suppose I get offended because my IQ is "only" about 120-130ish.

IQ isn't the greatest indicator of intelligence, but it does give you an estimate. George Bush's alleged IQ is just one way to defend against the Bush bashers who think he is the biggest retard on the planet. It's just one way to prove them wrong. Although, IQ doesn't mean everything.





Jgib5328 added to this post, 1 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Oh no. The IQ controversy... Rumors have it that his IQ is 80 - 90, but it is predicted to be 120'ish. Not too smart, for sure, but certainly not stupid.

How is a 120ish IQ 'Not too smart,for sure, but certainly not stupid'? 120ish is considered gifted.

[ginandsour]

Probably because of the number of people who think they have some astronomical figure for their IQ here, and the subset of those people who are reflexively critical of Bush because (ironically) they're unable to see any of his achivements objectively.

[Lights]

How is a 120ish IQ 'Not too smart,for sure, but certainly not stupid'? 120ish is considered gifted.

I don't think gifted is a term you hear used too often to describe adults with above average IQ. He has an intelligence equitable to just about any professional with a BS degree.

[Theodoric]

It would grossly depend upon your definition of what is dumb.

Bush certainly is no intellectual. He stumbles over his own words, seems to get confused a lot when faced with complex issues, and seems to trust his emotions more than evidence and thought. The same could probably be said for over 70% of the population.

However, Bush has also been able to get through the majority of his legislation no matter how much his opponents and special interest groups fight him. He easily defeats every bill that runs contrary to his own beliefs. He has been elected twice (granted, the alternatives were a stiff wooden doll and a senile idiot who could not make up his mind) even though he is supposedly unpopular. He is obviously crafty, manipulative, and clever. But is he 'dumb'?

That's open to interpretation.

[Provoker]

George Bush is just a plaything of the neoconservatives and transnational capitalists that run the American establishment. He's pliant and easily moldable which is key for carrying out the policies of the neocons who are pulling the strings. His syntax errors are unprecedented amoung presidents. Usually, people who don't speak well can't think well. Their voice is just an extension of their mind, but with Bush things are often distorted. To clarify things after 911 he gave it an "us versus them" dynamic which further demonstrates his oversimplifying tendency.

To answer the question. All in on this point, GW is stupid. But so are the people who voted for him.

[bucolic_]

To me, these kinds of discussions are meaningless, they're mud slinging, nothing more.

I could care less how he did on his SATs, it should matter how well he can run a country, and how effective his policies are. This is what people should spend time discussing, not hearsay on his IQ, most of which seems to be unfounded. It would appear to me that he's of average or a bit above average intelligence.

That being said, I don't think he's done a good job as president, but it's ridiculous to think someone would do better, simply because they have a higher IQ, which is what tends to be implied in such discussions.

Not to mention, his image as being folksy, down to earth, (which contributes to his "stupid" image) is most likely intentional.

[deepFlow]

Great post, _bucolic. My own value judgement on how he's running things aside, I fully agree.

[Blaze2000]

I think that that question is probably the wrong one to ask. The question to ask is "Is George Bush so intellectually lazy, that he can be herded in to doing what others around him tell him to?" And that answer is yes.

[Jgib5328]

I don't think gifted is a term you hear used too often to describe adults with above average IQ. He has an intelligence equitable to just about any professional with a BS degree.

The average IQ is like 95-110, so 120 is pretty good. It isn't something that just anyone has. Mine is probably about 130, which is decently high, so I'd say that with a 120 IQ should at least be considered good, not great or anything though. If you were to compare male height with IQ...

5'7 & below is below average so it's like an IQ of below 95

5'8-5'10 is average, so 95-110

5'11-6'1 is above average so probably 111-125

6'2-6'4 is far above average so 126-140

6'4 is very far above average & can be described as 141 & up

This is just how I think about IQs.

Yeah so I guess a person with a 120 IQ isn't gifted, but close though. I think a person with just a BS degree would have an average IQ range, getting a BS isn't difficult and is really commonplace nowadays.

[Lights]

Yeah so I guess a person with a 120 IQ isn't gifted, but close though. I think a person with just a BS degree would have an average IQ range, getting a BS isn't difficult and is really commonplace nowadays.

Nonetheless, an IQ of 120 is comparable to a graduate.

Apparently, the IQ gives a good indication of the occupational group that a person will end up in, though not of course the specific occupation. In their book, Know Your Child’s IQ, Glen Wilson and Diana Grylls outline occupations typical of various IQ levels:
140 Top Civil Servants; Professors and Research Scientists.
130 Physicians and Surgeons; Lawyers; Engineers (Civil and Mechanical)
120 School Teachers; Pharmacists; Accountants; Nurses; Stenographers; Managers.
110 Foremen; Clerks; Telephone Operators; Salesmen; Policemen; Electricians.
100+ Machine Operators; Shopkeepers; Butchers; Welders; Sheet Metal Workers.
100- Warehousemen; Carpenters; Cooks and Bakers; Small Farmers; Truck and Van Drivers.
90 Laborers; Gardeners; Upholsterers; Farmhands; Miners; Factory Packers and Sorters.

[eternaltriangle]

I don't think gifted is a term you hear used too often to describe adults with above average IQ. He has an intelligence equitable to just about any professional with a BS degree.

1. IQ is a general measure - Bush's specific skills in particular areas are higher or lower than that. So Bush is probably gifted at some things (his verbal skills are probably comparatively low, which is why people think he is dumb).

2. A 120-ish IQ puts Bush at the 95th percentile. That is pretty high.

3. Jimmy Carter definitely had a higher IQ than Bush, but was probably an even worse president.

[Lights]

1. IQ is a general measure - Bush's specific skills in particular areas are higher or lower than that. So Bush is probably gifted at some things (his verbal skills are probably comparatively low, which is why people think he is dumb).

2. A 120-ish IQ puts Bush at the 95th percentile. That is pretty high.

Well the whole 120 thing is based on speculation from his SAT scores. He's been pretty much a failure at everything from his military career, to running his Daddy's businesses, to being a governor, and especially as President. I can't think of anything he has been particularly gifted at besides lying.

3. Jimmy Carter definitely had a higher IQ than Bush, but was probably an even worse president.

Yeah, I'm gonna need to hear some justification for that.

[eternaltriangle]

Well the whole 120 thing is based on speculation from his SAT scores. He's been pretty much a failure at everything from his military career, to running his Daddy's businesses, to being a governor, and especially as President. I can't think of anything he has been particularly gifted at besides lying.

Yeah, I'm gonna need to hear some justification for that.

You left out being elected President and Governor of Texas twice

The case for Bush being a better president than Jimmy Carter.

1. His record on the economy
Carter started his term with high inflation (6%), and it continued to rise, peaking at over 9% at the beginning of Reagan's first term. Inflation under Bush has been readily stable, in spite of considerable increases in oil prices - less than 3% in every year except possibly the current one. Unemployment was also consistently lower under Bush than Carter (who ended his term with the greatest recession since the Great Depression). Carter wins on economic growth, but this was not because of technological improvements taking place on his watch, but rather more women (and men - this was when baby boomers were starting their jobs) entering the workplace and people working longer hours. Productivity growth, the best predictor of long-term prosperity, was stagnant through the 1970's, and Carter did nothing to reverse this. By contrast, president Bush's 8 years have seen a remarkable turnaround in productivity growth - the strongest since the boom years of the 50's and 60's.

2. Foreign policy
President Bush doesn't often get to brag about his foreign policy credentials, but he may have a leg up on Jimmy Carter. Carter did not understand the basis of detente - that Russian friendliness was tied to American forcefulness on key issue areas. Carter attempted to link US foreign policy to human rights, and as a result, did nothing to prevent the Shah of Iran from being deposed by the present fundamentalist regime that runs Iran. His botched rescue mission damaged American credibility, while his posturing resulted in a substantial increase in oil prices. Carter's angry response to the Soviet war in Afghanistan (which was at least partly due to Carter's inability to signal American intentions and credibly deter the Russians) led to the breakdown of detente, such that the early 80's were to see the the most nuclear war-prone period since the Cuban missile crisis (and unlike during the Cuban missile crisis, the nuclear arsenals of the east and west were well-stocked with ICBM's capable of hitting each other's backyards).

President Bush's record on foreign policy is not great, but at least there are some bright spots that can be pointed to, unlike with Carter. The big question for Bush is whether the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been a success. On the military side, I would argue that the notion that the war is a failure is overplayed. Vietnam resulted in the death of about 50,000 American troops, whereas casualties in Iraq are less than 4,000. That is incredibly low by comparison to almost any war of that duration and magnitude. Moreover, since the troop surge casualties are down considerably.

From a national interest point of view, the Iraq war was a failure. It worsened America's position in the middle east by eliminating Saddam Hussein - an effective counter against Iran. Moreover, it did so at a high cost of blood and treasure, not to mention the negative effects of high oil prices on American industry.

However, one can make the case that the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) are humanitarian successes. Both Afghanistan and Iraq have the beginnings of democracy in a region that tends towards autocracy. If one buys into democratic peace theory (I don't, but a lot of people do), the continuation of a trend towards democratization in the middle east may have positive long-term effects in addressing other issues (eg. Israel-Palestine). Actually the considerable accomodationist swing in Israeli politics following the formation of Kadima (unfortunately Sharon's death caused some problems) has a lot to do with the removal of Iraq as a conventional military challenger to Israel's security. Surrounded only by weak and small states, or peaceful ones (eg. Egypt and now Iraq), Israel is in a better position to make concessions to the Palestinians and build a lasting peace.

Is Bush a failure? Yes, but at least America has something to show for it, unlike it did with Jimmy Carter.

(ps. if you want an example of a stupid person being a fairly good president, then you need only look at Ronald Reagan).





eternaltriangle added to this post, 3 minutes and 1 seconds later...

My main point is this - it doesn't take a smart man to be a good president. There is probably some minimal threshold of intelligence needed for the job, but I would suspect most people have that. The bureaucracy crafts the policies that presidents choose between - a keen sense of what the people want is probably more important than knowledge. After all - is a parking lot better than a park? That isn't something that can be solved rationally. The most important job of a president is that of a communicator of ideas. That, incidentally, and not his intelligence, is Bush's main problem. Very rational and necessary policies, like social security reform, didn't get done because Bush is weak at communicating his policies, such that congress enacts them.

[Lights]

So basically your entire case is that Bush is better humanitarian President than Carter? I can make that argument since pretty much any economic gains Bush has made will be annihilated by our upcoming recession. :p

I find it hilarious that a conservative will be remembered for serving the common good. Of course, it wasn't the common good of our country, but the Middle East and Africa, but pickers can't be choosers. :laugh:

I think what America has to show for Bush is the costliest war in history, a serious loss in our credibility in the world since we now attack countries preemptively, and what could very well be the collapse of the American economy because of unregulated crediting and lending practices. :yuck:

Carter may have been a failure, but he didn't leave the country on the verge of complete destruction.

[eternaltriangle]

So basically your entire case is that Bush is better humanitarian President than Carter?

"I can make that argument since pretty much any economic gains Bush has made will be annihilated by our upcoming recession. :p"

That is a pretty weak argument - one year of say, -1% economic growth (which is about as harsh as recessions get) will not erase 7 years of decent growth. Moreover, productivity growth can't go away unless people forget new production techniques. Unemployment may rise, causing lower growth, but it would hardly erase the productivity gains of the last few years.

"I find it hilarious that a conservative will be remembered for serving the common good. Of course, it wasn't the common good of our country, but the Middle East and Africa, but pickers can't be choosers."

Why is it hilarious that a conservative would be remembered for serving the common good? The wars of the 20th century have been largely initiated by Democrats (Vietnam, Korea, both World Wars), and ended by Republicans (Korea and Vietnam). Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan improved relations with the Soviet Union (and in the latter case helped ensure that the decline did not result in chaos). George H W. Bush successfully contained Saddam Hussein with a multilateral UN-sanctioned war in Iraq (defending Kuwait). Peacemaking and do-goodery has been best accomplished by conservatives, who recognize that interests, force and credibility - not good intentions - are the currency of the international system. Bush's foreign policy stance is more similar to that traditionally held by hawkish Democrats (which is unsurprising because the neoconservative architects of the Iraq war include many ex-Trotskyites and former Democrats).

Bush has actually been a good leftist - if the problem with education and healthcare was "not enough money" then Bush's doubling of education spending, and substantial increases in health and human services (fastest growth in discretionary spending since Johnson's war on poverty), surely should have resulted in better results for all (I happen to think that policy, not money, is the root of American failure in social service delivery).

"I think what America has to show for Bush is the costliest war in history, a serious loss in our credibility in the world since we now attack countries preemptively, and what could very well be the collapse of the American economy because of unregulated crediting and lending practices."

Less than 4,000 dead, and the Iraq war is the costliest in US history? If you are referring to the cost in terms of money, it is about 1 trillion dollars. That seems large, but, over 5 years that is 200 billion a year or about 1.5% of US GDP. If you consider the ability of the country to pay for a war, that number is far smaller than the cost of Vietnam, Korea or either World War.

If you think America is in decline, you are only sort of correct. America has been in decline since a high-point in 1945 when it had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, and half of the world's GDP. Pretty tough to match! America is in decline vis-a-vis China and India, but both are sufficiently backwards that they can reverse-engineer foreign technologies rather than develop them by themselves. Vis-a-vis the other advanced industrial economies, the United States is doing fairly well - and its relative share of exports in high technology exports (eg. aerospace, biotechnology and IT) has increased over the past few years, rather than declined (as it did in the 80's and 90's, albeit from a very high starting point). I would argue that US decline has a lot more to do with the success of China than with the failure of the US (there is no way for the US to grow faster than China), although I would be happier to see more American leadership in addressing how to accommodate China in the international system.

Bush-bashing annoys me, not because it is untrue, but because it is generally a-historical. A country that has been run by the likes of Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, Warren Harding and Jimmy Carter has had plenty of terrible presidents. People that argue Bush is either the best or the worst have little appreciation for American history, especially since most are judging him based on a war that has yet to be resolved. As Mao Zedong said of the main effects of the French Revolution - "it is far too early to tell."

[Provoker]

From a national interest point of view, the Iraq war was a failure.

There's no such thing as a national interest to begin with. Throughout history governments have dropped bombs on people and committed atrocities justifed under the pretext of a 'national interest'. It's a myth. There is no 'national interest' there are only class interests. Other than that, I agree with you that the Iraq war was a failure.

[eternaltriangle]

There's no such thing as a national interest to begin with. Throughout history governments have dropped bombs on people and committed atrocities justifed under the pretext of a 'national interest'. It's a myth. There is no 'national interest' there are only class interests. Other than that, I agree with you that the Iraq war was a failure.

How was the war in Iraq about class interest? The economic results of the war meant - more government spending and taxes, as well as higher oil prices. Capitalists in defence-oriented industries benefited from contracts and higher military spending, capitalists in non-military industries (eg. IT, bio-tech) did not benefit because they have to pay for the war (on net). Similarly, it is also in the interest, or not in the interest, of the proletariat in those same industries.

Higher oil prices as a result of uncertainty are likewise good for oil producers outside of the middle east (in the middle east it is a wash - because higher prices reflect the genuine increased risk that oil production will be disrupted, whereas places like Alberta or Russia have won out unambiguously). Once again, some workers (in the oil industry, coal, or alternative energy sources) benefit, while others do not.

Is the nation-state just a figment of our imagination? Well kind of - it isn't like there are actual lines when you cross a border, but the nation-state remains the critical actor in the international system. Transnational terrorism has not changed that (how effective has Al Quaeda been at attacking the US without a state sponsor?), nor has globalization - at least for the big, diverse economies. What is the national interest? Obviously that is subject to some debate, but for me, the most critical question is whether the state is likely to survive into the future. The United States, from that point of view, is in a worse position than it was in 2003 - although that has more to do with the incredible rise of China and India than with American decline.

[Jgib5328]

There's no such thing as a national interest to begin with. Throughout history governments have dropped bombs on people and committed atrocities justifed under the pretext of a 'national interest'. It's a myth. There is no 'national interest' there are only class interests. Other than that, I agree with you that the Iraq war was a failure.

There was an intent by national interest, but like the previous poster said, we failed in that sense. We were trying to spread our influence in the middle east and just made it worse. It isn't about class, the rich people suffered from the war too.

[meanlittlechimp]

You left out being elected President and Governor of Texas twice

The case for Bush being a better president than Jimmy Carter.

1. His record on the economy
Carter started his term with high inflation (6%), and it continued to rise, peaking at over 9% at the beginning of Reagan's first term. Inflation under Bush has been readily stable, in spite of considerable increases in oil prices - less than 3% in every year except possibly the current one. Unemployment was also consistently lower under Bush than Carter (who ended his term with the greatest recession since the Great Depression). Carter wins on economic growth, but this was not because of technological improvements taking place on his watch, but rather more women (and men - this was when baby boomers were starting their jobs) entering the workplace and people working longer hours. Productivity growth, the best predictor of long-term prosperity, was stagnant through the 1970's, and Carter did nothing to reverse this. By contrast, president Bush's 8 years have seen a remarkable turnaround in productivity growth - the strongest since the boom years of the 50's and 60's.


Carter had to deal with an Oil embargo - a catastrophic external event that was no doing of his own. Bush caused his catastrophe - the Iraq war. There is a big difference.

This "growth" under Bush is ridiculous. Just our interest payments on the national dept is more than education, all of our social services (including welfare) and homeland security combined. We achieved growth through unbridled spending from the sub prime spending fiasco and predatory lending practices instituted by Bush's largest campaign contributer - MBNA.

One can achieve growth by cutting taxes and increasing spending as Bush did. In other words, I can go out and get a credit card, spend the shit out of it and one could say there is growth (from my increased spending and subsequent jobs being created) but when I default because because I can't really afford the goods, the growth will contract to worse starting point than when the growth occurred (due to interest payments, among other things). Thanks to Bush, this contraction will happen sooner than later.

We have a huge trade deficit, (not to be confused with our budget deficit). We then cut taxes (on mostly the wealthy) then go on a drunken spending spree (the Iraq war). How do you think we are paying for this? Stealing from the Social Security fund and borrowing more money. No matter who gets elected next, they are going to inherit a shit storm, and probably get the blame for the horrible recession we're going to end up in, caused by Bush. Bear Sterns collapsed today if you haven't heard, we're going to have to run the bill up even higher to bail them out after ridiculous lending laws legislated by MBNA - (yes they actually wrote the legislation that caused this fiasco as soon as he was elected 8 years ago; you don't think they gave Bush all that money for nothing did ya).

Thankfully, we won't be able to compete in certain areas like stem cell research, so we can spend the money building creationist museums for the same fucktards, in the red states, who voted for Bush. It's amazing there are people still defending him after the current state of affairs. I appreciate your loyalty and diehard fervor - it would be admirable, if it wasn't insane.



2. Foreign policy
President Bush doesn't often get to brag about his foreign policy credentials, but he may have a leg up on Jimmy Carter. Carter did not understand the basis of detente - that Russian friendliness was tied to American forcefulness on key issue areas. Carter attempted to link US foreign policy to human rights, and as a result, did nothing to prevent the Shah of Iran from being deposed by the present fundamentalist regime that runs Iran. His botched rescue mission damaged American credibility, while his posturing resulted in a substantial increase in oil prices.

Do you realize the reason the Shah was in power in the first place, was that we overthrew the secular constitutional democracy that was there earlier (Mossadegh)? After overthrowing Mossadegh we set up a puppet government, the Shah, a monarchy that had NO popular support whatsover; except the military we supplied him, to suppress the pro democracy movement that swelled up in response. The reason there is a fascist theocracy there today, was that the religious right were the only ones willing to die while trying to overthrow a foreign backed puppet government (maybe because of the virgins waiting in heaven for them); which made the secular and less extreme Muslims convert to fundamentalist forms of Islam in droves..

But I'm sure you were already aware of this, since you seem to be a student of history.

[eternaltriangle]

In the first place you argue that Carter cannot be blamed for the oil crisis, while in the second, you discuss the shah of Iran. The Iranian revolution led to the oil crisis, because of the panic it created about prospective future oil prices. I am aware that the Shah was an autocrat, but he was "our" autocrat, whereas Mossadegh had Communist leanings. Moreover, the regime replacing the Shah was hardly less oppressive. Democracy in Iran will and would likely result in either a pro-communist regime lined up alongside Arab nationalists (Iranians are not arabs, but the Iranian left could certainly align itself with them), or fundamentalists.

As for the growth under Bush, you need to ask the question - what is it that will create growth that is not ephemeral. The answer, I think you will agree, is productivity growth -each worker has to be able to output more stuff during a given period of time for each hour spent working. Government policies that encourage productivity growth (like tax cuts on the rich, which stimulate venture capitalism) raise productivity growth.

What was productivity growth like under Bush?

For some more specific data, productivity growth from 2001-2007 averaged over 2.5%/annum. Productivity increased by about 20% over that period.

By way of comparison productivity growth 1993-2000 (under Clinton) was 1.85%/annum.
Under George H W. Bush it was 2.1%/annum. Under Reagan it was 1.7%.

Under the great Jimmy Carter? .3%/annum. Productivity declined during the last two years of Carter's term. So not only does Carter do badly on inflation and unemployment, he does even worse on the more important measure - productivity growth.

If you like data, Nixon-Ford get 2.1%/annum, Lyndon Johnson got 3.1% and JFK 3.8% (though I counted 1963 for Johnson, since Kennedy was... indisposed during some of the year).

Source: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You mentioned stem cell research (I am pro-stem cells and pro-dead baby jokes) - but firstly, science has kind of solved that problem, and secondly, you are analyzing American success in an industry based on one aspect of policy, and not all. Government-funded research on pharmaceuticals went up from 5% of the research budget in 2001 to 7% in 2003. How did this impact America's competitiveness in biotechnology?

The patenting activity index for the USPTO was the same in 2006 as it was in 2000 (although America's relative share of global patents in biotechnology dipped slightly, this is probably attributable to the fact that it is easier to catch up than it is to be a first time innovator). Over 60% of global patents in biotechnology remain American patents, so American innovative activity is hardly in a free-fall.

In 2000, US exports of pharmaceuticals represented 13.6% of the global total. In 2003 (the furthest the data goes) the US was... 13.3% (so the share stayed the same as exports increased by about 50% - America remains competitive, and the biotech industry continues to do well). The US orientation towards high technology indicators also show improvement over Bush's term. The bottom line? Contrary to the perception of the Bush years as characterized by short term gain for long term pain, we have actually seen promising things (from a long-term point of view), alongside an imperfect, but not that bad short term.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 6 minutes and 44 seconds later...

"It's amazing there are people still defending him after the current state of affairs. I appreciate your loyalty and diehard fervor - it would be admirable, if it wasn't insane."

For the record, I am not pro-Bush. I am a devil's advocate however - I figure it is the better position, not because Bush's administration has been successful, but more because it wouldn't take much for me to demonstrate they did better than people think.

[Lights]

How does productivity growth account for skyrocketing national debt, high unemployment, and massive inflation?

[eternaltriangle]

How does productivity growth account for skyrocketing national debt, high unemployment, and massive inflation?

Those are short-term measures, linked much more to the boom and bust cycles that happen in the economy. Well less so the debt, but just as when your income increases you can spend more, it is hardly crazy to spend more (increasing the deficit) when the long-term outlook is better.

As for "high" inflation (CPI unchanged in February), despite rising oil prices, here is the picture from 1948-2007. I'd say things look pretty humdrum, and good by a long-term perspective.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Or unemployment, again, you lack a long-term perspective.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Unemployment is low by historical standards.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 2 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Moreover, it is the federal reserve, not the president that has most of the control over unemployment and inflation anyway.

[meanlittlechimp]

In the first place you argue that Carter cannot be blamed for the oil crisis, while in the second, you discuss the shah of Iran. The Iranian revolution led to the oil crisis, because of the panic it created about prospective future oil prices. I am aware that the Shah was an autocrat, but he was "our" autocrat, whereas Mossadegh had Communist leanings. Moreover, the regime replacing the Shah was hardly less oppressive. Democracy in Iran will and would likely result in either a pro-communist regime lined up alongside Arab nationalists (Iranians are not arabs, but the Iranian left could certainly align itself with them), or fundamentalists.

As for the growth under Bush, you need to ask the question - what is it that will create growth that is not ephemeral. The answer, I think you will agree, is productivity growth -each worker has to be able to output more stuff during a given period of time for each hour spent working. Government policies that encourage productivity growth (like tax cuts on the rich, which stimulate venture capitalism) raise productivity growth.


I don't think you understand how the numbers are calculated. I can choose to BORROW money against the future, by taking on debt, cutting taxes, and increasing expenditures. When a government spends money, it has a temporary stimulating boost to the economy. Jobs are created, whether you're building weapons, paying soldiers, executing social programs, education etc. It's a short term accounting trick or as economists call it "fiscal stimulus".

This spending on credit, increases GNP and growth in terms of sources you quote. What you don't get is it that it's not real (and is a short term economic tactic). Real growth, is like the Chinese. Increased value of their currency, increased jobs, increased standard of living, HUGE trade surplus. NO DEBT, in fact we owe them so much money that if they wanted to, they could pull out all their US dollars cash reserves and make our currency plummet to a level that could cripple our economy. What we're doing is spending like teenagers, with their first credit card, and printing more paper (lowering the interest rate which affects money supply) to make up for the bed credit we're running up.

It's a mistake to look point out things like "growth" without context, when you don't understand how we "grew" or what other numbers we traded off to get there. Some other numbers that kinda matter are: trade deficit (it's important to sell more stuff to others, than we buy from them), inflation (value of the dollar), employment rate, and national debt (when it grows so big, that the interest rate alone is outstripping other major expenditures).

[eternaltriangle]

I am talking about productivity growth, not GDP growth (which is also decent). As in, when some guy has the bright idea that if you use a spinning jenny instead of a person, you can sew more cotton, that's productivity growth. More of that is happening. This is good - and is the only way for a nation to get richer without everybody working harder. America's productivity growth is not based on borrowing, rather, America's borrowing is being financed by its productivity growth.

You are complaining about fiscal policy. America has a trade deficit - WHO CARES! That just means Americans import more than they export. Why? Because Americans are rich (relatively speaking). Does America have a deficit? You bet, and deficits are bad, but always a tradeoff. Are the negative effects of the deficit greater or less than those of raising taxes or reducing government spending. What is the big picture? WHY are deficits bad? Deficits are bad because they drive up interest rates and crowd out investment, and slow productivity growth down. Nonetheless, the big picture is that productivity growth is strong IN spite of deficits.

[meanlittlechimp]

I am talking about productivity growth, not GDP growth (which is also decent). As in, when some guy has the bright idea that if you use a spinning jenny instead of a person, you can sew more cotton, that's productivity growth. More of that is happening. This is good - and is the only way for a nation to get richer without everybody working harder. America's productivity growth is not based on borrowing, rather, America's borrowing is being financed by its productivity growth.


My bad, I assumed you had to be talking about GDP growth.

Productivity growth is kind of silly to apply to administrations in the short term. Productivity growths usually occur with technological or infrastructure advancements. And the policy action to stimulate productivity can take decades to gestate and form. Providing great education and producing better engineers is one of the chief ways to do that. And those programs take years to take effect. Even if you spent money on gov't R&D or incentivized it for the private sector - those improvements take years to materialize in the numbers.

Can you tell me how Bush achieved this productivity increase? Do you think he just inherited it or do you think he did something to cause it?



America has a trade deficit - WHO CARES! That just means Americans import more than they export. Why? Because Americans are rich (relatively speaking). Does America have a deficit? You bet, and deficits are bad, but always a tradeoff. Are the negative effects of the deficit greater or less than those of raising taxes or reducing government spending. What is the big picture? WHY are deficits bad? Deficits are bad because they drive up interest rates and crowd out investment, and slow productivity growth down. Nonetheless, the big picture is that productivity growth is strong IN spite of deficits.


It also lowers employment - which drives up other less tangible social costs. Costs, like jails, welfare, unemployment, crime and other social costs that occur. More importantly, the trade deficit drives up our national debt. When our national debt gets so high that it takes up more money to pay the interest than almost any other category it turns into a big issue.

That money could be used to increase productivity via education, R&D, or tax incentives. Here is a link to our debt and our expenditures:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Snowdragon]

If we replaced Bush with a monkey, no one would tell the difference except that the monkey would do a better job. This guy left us with a whopping deficit that is in the TRILLIONS and who's gonna pay for it.....? My generation and the many generations after us. This guy cannot string together two intelligible sentences.

[Riverratt]

If we replaced Bush with a monkey, no one would tell the difference except that the monkey would do a better job. This guy left us with a whopping deficit that is in the TRILLIONS and who's gonna pay for it.....? My generation and the many generations after us. This guy cannot string together two intelligible sentences.


Right....And the Democrats, could NOT, beat him at all... :rolleyes:

Really says alot about them now don't it...

[Antares]

Right....And the Democrats, could NOT, beat him at all... :rolleyes:

Really says alot about them now don't it...

All it means is that they're not good at winning over biggies such as Cali. Their popularity doesn't actually define their competence.

[sriv]

Bush cheated North Carolina (the decisive state) from John McCain in the 2000 or 2004 primaries (I forget which one).

Karl Rove, his advisor, orchestrated a chain phone call that said that McCain has an illegitimate, black child. With the understanding that this is the South, that bastard plays dirty! To think we trusted him even after he lied. Hitler scenario, but stupider, all over again.

[Ool]

Stupid.

Quite.

well he did get re-elected didn't he?

Well, that's because, due to a general mental dysgenic trend in society, a critical mass of voters are stupid, too.

Actually that's not the word I'm looking for. "Dumb as <let your Tourette's run wild in this space>" is the only way to put it.

They're really dumb, they're very cocksure and confident that they really know everything and know how to run everything better than those snotty smart people currently in charge, and GWB was their hero and role model.

That's why we siegheiled the Kaiser and the Führer. There's nothing like an uneducated electorate lacking humility gaining momentum.

And--make no mistake!--those voters are still around and if the crap hits the fan they're likely to make even worse mistakes, once they've forgotten the lessons of the last seven years. And their memory doesn't last all that long. Vietnam was already ancient history to them by 2004, after all...

[Karamazov]

Well, that's because, due to a general mental dysgenic trend in society, a critical mass of voters are stupid, too.

Actually that's not the word I'm looking for. "Dumb as <let your Tourette's run wild in this space>" is the only way to put it.

They're really dumb, they're very cocksure and confident that they really know everything and know how to run everything better than those snotty smart people currently in charge, and GWB was their hero and role model.

That's why we siegheiled the Kaiser and the Führer. There's nothing like an uneducated electorate lacking humility gaining momentum.

And--make no mistake!--those voters are still around and if the crap hits the fan they're likely to make even worse mistakes, once they've forgotten the lessons of the last seven years. And their memory doesn't last all that long. Vietnam was already ancient history to them by 2004, after all...

That's quite depressing.

Probably why I don't vote. At least I won't be responsible for helping elect incompetent people from any party. Choosing to vote for a person you know is bad because you think the other person is worse? No thanks.....
I could always vote for the communist party just for fun. I've also heard they have a Jedi party.....

[Ool]

Probably why I don't vote.

Well, there are certain people worth voting against, even if you think the opponent is no one to vote for. Bush is such a person.

Although in a roundabout way it was probably for the best that he won a second term. The Iraq occupation and the economy would have blown up no matter what, and this way at least they blew up in the face of the person who started it all and screwed it up…

I mean, can you imagine the Republicans hollering today if things were half as bad as they are today and Kerry were in charge? You just know they would have successfully made millions think that if only they had stayed the course that everything would have come up roses by now.

Well, this way at least they don’t have a leg to stand on…

Of course if I were an Iraqi refugee with half my family dead then I propably wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about how bad this is, PR-wise, for the people responsible…

[Octavianus Caesar]

Well, there are certain people worth voting against, even if you think the opponent is no one to vote for. Bush is such a person.

Although in a roundabout way it was probably for the best that he won a second term. The Iraq occupation and the economy would have blown up no matter what, and this way at least they blew up in the face of the person who started it all and screwed it up…

I mean, can you imagine the Republicans hollering today if things were half as bad as they are today and Kerry were in charge? You just know they would have successfully made millions think that if only they had stayed the course that everything would have come up roses by now.

Well, this way at least they don’t have a leg to stand on…

Of course if I were an Iraqi refugee with half my family dead then I propably wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about how bad this is, PR-wise, for the people responsible…

You are a ray of sunshine ;D

[sriv]

Well, there are certain people worth voting against, even if you think the opponent is no one to vote for. Bush is such a person.

Although in a roundabout way it was probably for the best that he won a second term. The Iraq occupation and the economy would have blown up no matter what, and this way at least they blew up in the face of the person who started it all and screwed it up…

I mean, can you imagine the Republicans hollering today if things were half as bad as they are today and Kerry were in charge? You just know they would have successfully made millions think that if only they had stayed the course that everything would have come up roses by now.

Well, this way at least they don’t have a leg to stand on…

Of course if I were an Iraqi refugee with half my family dead then I propably wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about how bad this is, PR-wise, for the people responsible…

But the republicans never keep a bad reputation. They develop one consistently and repeat history multiple times, but they never permanently recieve a bad reputation however deserving of it they are.

Then they blame everything on the democrats. Now the democrats will have to raise taxes and Bush still has someone to point a finger at. :( Damn them.

[Octavianus Caesar]

But the republicans never keep a bad reputation. They develop one consistently and repeat history multiple times, but they never permanently recieve a bad reputation however deserving of it they are.

Then they blame everything on the democrats. Now the democrats will have to raise taxes and Bush still has someone to point a finger at. :( Damn them.

The Republican Party is what freed the Slaves, Abraham Lincoln. It was the Republican Party control of Congress that passed the Civil Acts rights of 1960's.

If anything the Republican party has been screwed out of some of their accomplishments, because the Media or the Dems or Republicans just not showing foresight to show what they have accomplished.

If anything you are showing quite a bias. As if the Dems are the best of the parties and Republican's are the worse of the parties.

Republican's have been called the party of Racist, homophobia, Right-wing Christian nuts, home of the KKK, Jew haters. Party of the rich, party of the big businesses, ect.

Somehow the good acts of the Republican party are given over to the Dems and the bad acts or bad apples stay with them.

I am not writing this as a republican or Democrat, I am just putting forth what history can prove.

[Ool]

But the republicans never keep a bad reputation. They develop one consistently and repeat history multiple times, but they never permanently recieve a bad reputation however deserving of it they are.

Then they blame everything on the democrats. Now the democrats will have to raise taxes and Bush still has someone to point a finger at. :( Damn them.

Well, that’s because the conservative approach of worshiping big money and free enterprise wasn’t actually such a bad idea in an underpopulated country full of resources. It only becomes oppressive and hopeless once all the potential property is divided up and newcomers don’t have a chance at getting a piece of the pie any more.

Also you have to remember that the last century was dominated by an ideological conflict with an evil empire that was communist. So the conservatives had no problems thinking and convincing people they were the forces of good in comparison. That is, of course, a logical fallacy. Just because the other guys are the bad guys doesn’t mean one’s own side is the good guys. The simple example of Nazi Germany vs. Soviet Russia in World War II illustrates that.

But the fact is that the Americans actually were as close to the good guys as you could get, and so it wasn’t hard for conservatives to see themselves as the saviors and everything even remotely left-leaning as the ever-present Antichrist in their midst.

It was actually when the Soviet Union crumbled and the Cold War was won by the West that right-wing ideology went into overdrive and developed the hubris that blew up in its face today. But the times and the circumstances are changing. Whereas in the past the scary looming enemy on the horizon was godless and collectivist, the new enemy is actually excessively goddy and fundamentalist. In light of the similarities between themselves and their new foe, the right-wing extremists have a harder and harder time selling their values even to people with an authoritarian mindset. The cognitive dissonance just keeps getting too loud, and the military failures aren’t helping…

[Beery Swine]

I am biased on this, but let's just say he's no English major.

misunderestimate
strategery
fool me twice can't get fooled again
I'm the decider
nucular

Just off the top of my head.:( Our president.:(

[Karamazov]

"War is a dangerous place"

"Is our children learning?"

Oh and my personal favorite:
"Mission Accomplished"

[meanlittlechimp]

The Republican Party is what freed the Slaves, Abraham Lincoln. It was the Republican Party control of Congress that passed the Civil Acts rights of 1960's.

If anything the Republican party has been screwed out of some of their accomplishments, because the Media or the Dems or Republicans just not showing foresight to show what they have accomplished.


Back then the republican party was the liberal or left wing party (and essentially transformed into the modern day democrats). Read up a little more about them.

Modern day republicans are by far the most racist party (though obviously the significant majority aren't) - most racists, rednecks and bible thumpers prefer the republican party, I don't think you can dispute this. What percentage of white nationalists, KKK members etc do you think vote democrat? The ratio has got to be 99 to 1. Bush Sr. voted against the civil rights act. The majority of the Republicans didn't like colored folks sharing the same bathroom or going to same schools and many still don't.

The conservative mindset generally prefers the status quo until progressives/liberals pull their heads out of their asses. That goes for women's rights, civil rights, carpet bombing farmers, de-listing of homosexuality as a DSM mental disease etc etc.

Hell many democracts are going to vote republican this time around because Obama is black, so there are racists on both aisles, but one party has FAR more racists. This is obvious.

[azelismia]

The Republican Party is what freed the Slaves, Abraham Lincoln. It was the Republican Party control of Congress that passed the Civil Acts rights of 1960's.


The parties as we know them are not the same as they were in lincolns day. basically values of the two parties were reversed back then.

oops, should have read this thread all the way thru. mean lil chimp already touched this.

[Karamazov]

In the first place you argue that Carter cannot be blamed for the oil crisis, while in the second, you discuss the shah of Iran. The Iranian revolution led to the oil crisis, because of the panic it created about prospective future oil prices. I am aware that the Shah was an autocrat, but he was "our" autocrat, whereas Mossadegh had Communist leanings. Moreover, the regime replacing the Shah was hardly less oppressive. Democracy in Iran will and would likely result in either a pro-communist regime lined up alongside Arab nationalists (Iranians are not arabs, but the Iranian left could certainly align itself with them), or fundamentalists.

The canard that Mossadegh had communist leanings was a mere fabrication posited by the British, still teeming with unbridled indignation over his nationalizing Iranian oil which were largely under British control (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company). Iran didn't benefit at all from the previous policy (the British receiving the biggest of the royalties), so naturally his changing the policy did not sit well with presiding British government. Unable to do anything on their own, they repeatedly tried to elicit help from America, but were flatly refused time and time again until a new Republican government took power and finally gave in (at the height of the anti-communist hysteria through the 40's and 50's) He was deposed by a joint British-American operation (Operation Ajax) which allowed for an authoritarian regime to be installed and as a result, paved the way a fundamentalist regime. One of the many foreign-policy blunders a zealous American government conducted at the time.

By the way, Iranians and Arabs would never align together. Iran is largely Shiite while most of the Arab world is Sunni, so a very stark idealogical contrast. The Baathist Party ideology, pertaining to the Middle East, was primarily embraced by Arab countries (Such as Syria and Iraq).

[phantasma]

I think Bush is as smart as your average person, just a really bad communicator. Of course people will think he's an idiot after all those Bushisms he's made.

"I know that the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully. " - George Bush

[Ool]

I think Bush is as smart as your average person, just a really bad communicator. Of course people will think he's an idiot after all those Bushisms he's made

Well, “as smart as the average person” in a position where you can launch nuclear missiles is a bit scary. You’d want someone in that office who has just a little bit better than average judgment. And as far as good judgment goes, the one thing you do not want is someone with a sadistically sociopathic streak…

What is more frightening than his apparent lack of wit is actually his emotional callousness and lack of compassion. Ironically he ran as a “compassionate conservative,” which was either a bald-faced lie or a sign that he had no idea what compassion means anyway. The guy had put more people to death as a governor than any other politician in the history of the country. He mocked one of them and her plea for her life on public TV after he had just denied her clemency appeal. And yet he had the gall to call himself compassionate. That is pretty retarded, if he actually believed it (and downright evil if he didn’t). It is also retarted if the people who voted for him believed it and if it never raised a red flag in their minds…

Well, I guess they learned the hard way today what happens when you put a sociopath, who doesn’t care about human life, into a position of power. At least I hope they did. Actually I fear that Americans, just like their president, are too retarded—both intellectually and emotionally—to put two and two together in that respect…

[Aronnax]

Actually I fear that Americans, just like their president, are too retarded—both intellectually and emotionally—to put two and two together in that respect…

Don't get too emotionally worked up until we're dumb enough to follow our leader on a military conquest of Europe and the enslavement and systematic murder of several million Jewish civilians.

Yes, the US does foolish things but it does get old listening to Europeans who like to pretend their shit doesn't stink. Bad decisions are made, like following bad leaders on foolhardy policies, but that doesn't make 300 million people retarded.

[Mercury]

Bush is quite stupid

[Ool]

Don't get too emotionally worked up until we're dumb enough to follow our leader on a military conquest of Europe and the enslavement and systematic murder of several million Jewish civilians.

Well, if Bush was comparable to that nitwit Kaiser of ours then how much longer until an American Führer comes to power? In our case it was about fifteen years.

That’s what I’m worried about…

[OneBadMother]

The personality cult surrounding Bush is so thick that I'm tempted to believe that it is a brilliant ruse to keep him from being held fully accountable for his actions.

[Karamazov]

The personality cult surrounding Bush is so thick that I'm tempted to believe that it is a brilliant ruse to keep him from being held fully accountable for his actions.

No kidding. Somehow, I believe, they are waiting for him to take off the proverbial mask and show that he really was as brilliant and erudite as his inner circle (and die-hard loyalists) kept squawking about. Perhaps his butchering of the English language was really a subtle, yet cleverly contrived ruse to motivate people to pick up a dictionary and point out his grammatical/spelling errors, thereby increasing their vocabulary, comprehension and solving the dilemma of the watering down of diction amongst our crazed Hannah-Montana youths, due to the advent of rampant text messaging.

Maybe I'm over-analyzing it....

[Jgib5328]

I mean he does say some stupid shit, but if you had cameras following your every move recording your every word, you'd say your share of dumb things too. According to his SATs his IQ is slightly above average, which seems reasonable. It doesn't even matter that much, he has some of the brightest people working under him.

[Ool]

[…] It doesn't even matter that much, he has some of the brightest people working under him.

Like who…?

They guy rewards loyalty over competence, for crying out loud!

He’s like Stalin minus the bodycount—whoever he recalls ever having disagreed with him or worked against him at some point is out of the loop. Not blacklisted for Siberia or for a firing squad, but certainly not working for his administration, either…

So in the end all that he got was a huge Inner Circle of mostly incompetent sycophants…

[schwartzie]

The Chimp-o-matic for today, June 2, 2008 says:

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
--George w. Bush
Poplar Bluff, MO
09/06/2004

Now aint that jus' as smart as all get out?
For your own chimp-o-matic feed, visit:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[phantasma]

Well, “as smart as the average person” in a position where you can launch nuclear missiles is a bit scary. You’d want someone in that office who has just a little bit better than average judgment. And as far as good judgment goes, the one thing you do not want is someone with a sadistically sociopathic streak…

While I agree, your proposal is nearly impossible. Americans as a whole don't care about intelligence. The presidential election is the biggest popularity contest around.

What is more frightening than his apparent lack of wit is actually his emotional callousness and lack of compassion. Ironically he ran as a “compassionate conservative,” which was either a bald-faced lie or a sign that he had no idea what compassion means anyway. The guy had put more people to death as a governor than any other politician in the history of the country. He mocked one of them and her plea for her life on public TV after he had just denied her clemency appeal. And yet he had the gall to call himself compassionate. That is pretty retarded, if he actually believed it (and downright evil if he didn’t). It is also retarted if the people who voted for him believed it and if it never raised a red flag in their minds…

Like I said before, politics is a popularity contest. While his being compassionate is an outright lie, think what would happen to him if he told the truth. It would be his political deathwish. Also, hardly anyone, even the people that lived in Texas with him as governor knows about his sadistic lack of compassion. No one knows and no one cares to find out about how Bush treated criminals when he was governor. I'm not making excuses for Bush, just telling you that Americans don't know and don't care.

Well, I guess they learned the hard way today what happens when you put a sociopath, who doesn’t care about human life, into a position of power. At least I hope they did. Actually I fear that Americans, just like their president, are too retarded—both intellectually and emotionally—to put two and two together in that respect…

Again, hardly anyone knows how much of a sociopath he is. They didn't learn a thing at all. Here's an inside look into the thoughts of the American people: "Oh, Bush. Idiot. *moves on* " And though I know you're generalizing, don't assume that all Americans are stupid. It's just that the smart, politically conscious Americans are greatly outnumbered so no one hears their voice. It's extremely annoying for people to assume all Americans are idiots. I'm an American and I'm no idiot. I know exactly what's going on, but as a teenager, all I can do is sit and watch.

[azelismia]

Don't get too emotionally worked up until we're dumb enough to follow our leader on a military conquest of Europe and the enslavement and systematic murder of several million Jewish civilians.

Yes, the US does foolish things but it does get old listening to Europeans who like to pretend their shit doesn't stink. Bad decisions are made, like following bad leaders on foolhardy policies, but that doesn't make 300 million people retarded.


Were all the people in Germany retarded? Have you heard of the book called the third wave? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
it was an experiment that a teacher did in his classroom that showed how easy it was to create that sort of enviroment. Sure, not terribly scientific but the point is that it can happen to any group of people if you enact that right sort of group think.

[ShadowX26]

I would say that most politicians are stupid.

[Aronnax]

Were all the people in Germany retarded? Have you heard of the book called the third wave? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
it was an experiment that a teacher did in his classroom that showed how easy it was to create that sort of enviroment. Sure, not terribly scientific but the point is that it can happen to any group of people if you enact that right sort of group think.


I've read a book called "The Third Wave", from what I recall it discusses how technology advances as waves and how most conflict arises as interference between advancing technology and the culture developed to cope with a previous "wave". I really enjoyed that book, it wasn't a perfect explanation but it was one of the better ones I've looked at. I don't recall that specific experiment in group think being covered but I read that book 3 years ago and haven't touched it since.

It's not that I believe Americans are magically immune to group think leading to foreign conquests, I just don't see it happening at this moment in history. There are some inherent cultural issues that make Americans more resistant to that sort of thing: the double edged sword of Randian thought and our tendency to develop an Isolationist foreign policy when faced with economic depression both come to mind.

I don't discount that the US could move on to a long chain of foreign wars and some of the contributing factors for the required cultural change are rearing their ugly heads. A rejection of intellectualism and a pending economic depression are definite contributing factors so it's possible that the US "could" take that route, I just consider it highly unlikely.

Even speaking domestically, Bush is one of the most unpopular US presidents of all time. He's been elected by a very slim margin in both cycles and his domestic and foreign policies are widely recognized as terrible for the country. An outsider looking in can easily mistake 2 of the driving reasons for why "we support our troops" as pure nationalism but they're really the child of our last 2 major wars. Regardless of their opinion on the war itself many Americans feel we have a responsibility to rebuild Iraq. They saw what their parents/grandparent achieved using the same policy in Germany and Japan and want to give Iraq a chance to develop into a healthy nation. Furthermore we saw how socially destructive blaming the soldiers for the foreign policy mistakes of our leaders was after Vietnam. Our leadership is leveraging these beliefs to pour money into the pockets of Halliburton et al but I doubt there's any support left for yet another foreign adventure.

My earlier reaction was a result of listening to a French exchange student rant for ~20 minutes about how the US was full of idiots and was going to destroy the world, Ool managed to catch the back end of my irritation. Being repeatedly grouped by vague association and having characteristics of about half the group attributed to you gets old fast. The US is a big country, filled with people of various beliefs and intellectual capacity. If the EU grows in power you'll begin to see many of the problems that US states face when they're dragged into national policies they don't agree with and are forced to share responsibility for those bad decisions.

[azelismia]

I've read a book called "The Third Wave", from what I recall it discusses how technology advances as waves and how most conflict arises as interference between advancing technology and the culture developed to cope with a previous "wave". I really enjoyed that book, it wasn't a perfect explanation but it was one of the better ones I've looked at. I don't recall that specific experiment in group think being covered but I read that book 3 years ago and haven't touched it since.



No, the book I was referring to was far more simplistic. It's written for youth. I read it while I worked in a college computer lab. Someone left it behind and I read it out of boredom. it was documenting a high school teachers attempt to show his students how easy it was to slip into the mindset the germans had during the war. Humans enmass are pretty easy to control. he did a group experiment in the class room. Students spying on each other. Strict order in the class room. Strange rules. that sort of thing. My memory is sort of hazy on the exact details but it was along those lines. it worked very well and freaked out the parents. It actually nearly got him fired because he started enjoying his roll as dictator too much.

I am of the opinion that it's unlikely to ever happen again but the psychological set up that's been taking place in America in the last 8 years is troublesome imho. Sure there are a lot of individualists in America but there are more biblethumpers who do what they're told. Bush WAS voted in both times even if by a margin..

[meanlittlechimp]

Regardless of their opinion on the war itself many Americans feel we have a responsibility to rebuild Iraq. They saw what their parents/grandparent achieved using the same policy in Germany and Japan and want to give Iraq a chance to develop into a healthy nation.

There is a big difference between Japan/Germany and Iraq. We didn't invade those places under false pretenses.

The rebuilding argument is how the policy makers are selling the new intiative to stay indefinitely (as McCain wants); but do you really think the Republican planners are there for rebuilding or ever were?

The idea that we are spending trillions of dollars of tax money, to help Iraqi well being is ludicrous. Republicans are against the GI bill for returning vets, but they want to spend money to help Iraqis? Yeah right.

[Aronnax]

There is a big difference between Japan/Germany and Iraq. We didn't invade those places under false pretenses.

The rebuilding argument is how the policy makers are selling the new intiative to stay indefinitely (as McCain wants); but do you really think the Republican planners are there for rebuilding or ever were?

The idea that we are spending trillions of dollars of tax money, to help Iraqi well being is ludicrous. Republicans are against the GI bill for returning vets, but they want to spend money to help Iraqis? Yeah right.

Read the entire paragraph again.

That sentence explained where most of the public support comes from, not the leadership's reasons for the invasion or continued occupation.

[meanlittlechimp]

Read the entire paragraph again.

That sentence explained where most of the public support comes from, not the leadership's reasons for the invasion or continued occupation.

I understood it correctly, I was asking about your position though on why the leadership chose to go in and wants to stay. I realized it wasn't your opinion. I always use hyperbole, because I like drama.

[Aronnax]

I understood it correctly, I was asking about your position though on why the leadership chose to go in and wants to stay. I realized it wasn't your opinion. I always use hyperbole, because I like drama.

I see; for future reference it's faster and easier to ask me direct questions.

My opinion on the leadership's goals? Our leadership's interest in Iraq is to maintain the dollar standard in oil, establish a friendly Iraq similar to what we had pre-1990, expand US buisness interests in the region and enrich their financial supporters through guaranteed profit and no bid contracts.

[meanlittlechimp]

My opinion on the leadership's goals? Our leadership's interest in Iraq is to maintain the dollar standard in oil, establish a friendly Iraq similar to what we had pre-1990, expand US buisness interests in the region and enrich their financial supporters through guaranteed profit and no bid contracts.

Ok we pretty much agree, just checking.

I agree it's about oil, but I don't think they care if it's done in a friendly manner. The entire notion of guaranteed no bid contracts, isn't "friendly" to the owners of oil.

[Aronnax]

Ok we pretty much agree, just checking.

I agree it's about oil, but I don't think they care if it's done in a friendly manner. The entire notion of guaranteed no bid contracts, isn't "friendly" to the owners of oil.

The no bid contracts are for services provided to US forces in the region. KBR, Veritas Capital Fund and Blackwater have made billions providing services that the US army used to provide. The development of Iraqi oil fields was actually an open international bid.

Pre-1990 Iraq was a secular nation and diplomatically close to the US. After the first Gulf War the US was no longer on good terms with Iraqi leadership. The democratization of Iraq is a forced restructure to establish a Government that will be more friendly towards the US. The neocons are quite serious when they talk about spreading democracy. They really believe that you can force that kind of political change and it will make people like you.

[phantasma]

You'd think it would make more sense if the US were to make Iraq like them by giving them the freedom they already have a right to. They should have whatever government they want so long as there aren't human rights issues.

[meanlittlechimp]

The neocons are quite serious when they talk about spreading democracy.

That's absurd. They definitely rigged the 2000 Florida election and probably rigged the 2004 Ohio election. They believe in every dirty scumbag tactic as long as they can get across their agenda. They're known the world over as one the most militaristic anti-democracy administration in US History. They are the reason the US has been voted as the biggest threat to world peace in Europe.

They really believe that you can force that kind of political change and it will make people like you.

By calling other nations "the axis of evil" while you invade them and topple their governments? The neocons are the same guys who approved of hiring mercenary thugs to destabilize populist movements in Latin America. Do you know anything about the murder and repression in El Savlador, Nicauragua, Honduras etc?

Are you aware of Iran Contra, or our foreign policy history in that region? Do you think coup attempts on Chavez or other elected leaders, "promoting democracy" or political change - to get people to like you??? Do you think "the School of the Americas" (Ft Bennington) is about spreading demoracy? We go and hire contras to murder priests and labor movement leaders who muck up the "elections" we rig there.

You need to study more history. You seem the type of guy who might get it, if you were aware of all the facts.

You'd think it would make more sense if the US were to make Iraq like them by giving them the freedom they already have a right to. They should have whatever government they want so long as there aren't human rights issues.

The problem is that in free bidding system, we would get outbid by other nations (like China, Japan etc). Not that we wouldn't have any oil, but the average consumer would pay FAR more for it. This is devastating affects on an economy who borrows to purchase oil at cheap rates, and attacks other nations to steal the oil unfairly on top of it.

The Neocons intelligently predicted this would happen back in 1992. The Wolfowitz papers (my favorite neo-con) which predicted Chinese growth rates at 10% per year would put dire pressures on the US economy. They predicted much of our current state - the US running massive trade and budget deficits and relying on the Chinese to prop up our currency (via purchasing T-bonds), what effect do you think it would have our economy. Those same papers argued logically, that oil needs to get secured at all costs. I agree with the neo-con analys, just not with their moronic methods.

They use the oil to build products the world actually purchases. Most of OUR purchases are borrowing money to heat and air condition 5,000 sq foot homes and drive gas guzzling SUVs. We take this ever increasing valuable FINITE resource and shit on it, while borrowing money from others to fund our extravagent lifestyle, on CREDIT.

In a free bidding system, our way of life would be drastically reduced... It's far easier to invade countries with oil, or call nations who want to nationalize their oil industry, "communists" or "terrorists" (the new in vogue word for the neo-cons).

That's why we funded and trained bin Laden against the Soviets and invaded Afghanistan. Not to look in caves for him, not because the Taliban aren't religious zealots. It's because of the oil pipeline that runs through that country. The folks that know nothing about foreign policy, have no idea how important this pipeline is... That's why the Soviets wanted it so badly, not because they wanted to get rid of the Taliban or help the Afghanis. None of the superpowers are there for that.

[Aronnax]

That's absurd. They definitely rigged the 2000 Florida election and probably rigged the 2004 Ohio election. They believe in every dirty scumbag tactic as long as they can get across their agenda. They're known the world over as one the most militaristic anti-democracy administration in US History. They are the reason the US has been voted as the biggest threat to world peace in Europe.


By calling other nations "the axis of evil" while you invade them and topple their governments? The neocons are the same guys who approved of hiring mercenary thugs to destabilize populist movements in Latin America. Do you know anything about the murder and repression in El Savlador, Nicauragua, Honduras etc?

Are you aware of Iran Contra, or our foreign policy history in that region? Do you think coup attempts on Chavez or other elected leaders, "promoting democracy" or political change - to get people to like you??? Do you think "the School of the Americas" (Ft Bennington) is about spreading demoracy? We go and hire contras to murder priests and labor movement leaders who muck up the "elections" we rig there.

You need to study more history. You seem the type of guy who might get it, if you were aware of all the facts.



I'm aware of the CIA's actions in South and Central America and what has been done under the cover of "The War on Drugs". I'm aware of how the School of the Americas trained Pinochet's officers and has sown death across other South American nations. I know how the world bank's loans are frequently set with conditions to force the sale of publicly owned utilities like water and electricity for pennies on the dollar to foreign corporations.

Think about the question you asked me for a minute: "why the leadership chose to go in and wants to stay" and I told you what their reasons were. They really believe that the free market is the solution to all the world's problems. They believe that spreading Democracy will make the world our allies. They believe in their goals so deeply that they're willing to achieve them through any means necessary. Lies, theft, corruption, blackmail, assassination and revolution are all acceptable means to an end. What you see as evil they see as necessary and I bet they sleep like a baby.

You underestimate the lengths a human will go to in order to deceive themselves once their path is chosen. Do you think catholic inquisitors hesitated when using heated iron and knives to "redeem" the souls of their captives? What about the calvary that hunted down and exterminated native Americans to make it safe for white settlers, did they question their orders? Do you think the men who assemble atomic weapons spend much time worrying about what the bomb they're putting together will do if it's used?

You asked me what the beliefs of our leaders were and I told you. The ego will spin fantastic lies to rationalize any behavior and once set on a path will work doubly hard to protect itself from doubt. Free trade, rampant consumerism and domestic security by any means necessary are the path these men have set themselves on and they will rationalize all behavior as acceptable if it will bring about these goals.

[Ool]

Think about the question you asked me for a minute: "why the leadership chose to go in and wants to stay" and I told you what their reasons were. They really believe that the free market is the solution to all the world's problems. They believe that spreading Democracy will make the world our allies. They believe in their goals so deeply that they're willing to achieve them through any means necessary. Lies, theft, corruption, blackmail, assassination and revolution are all acceptable means to an end. What you see as evil they see as necessary and I bet they sleep like a baby.

Yeah, that’s why I mentioned, when choosing between a hypocrite and a delusional person, choose the hypocrite!





Ool added to this post, 11 minutes and 56 seconds later...

You asked me what the beliefs of our leaders were and I told you. The ego will spin fantastic lies to rationalize any behavior and once set on a path will work doubly hard to protect itself from doubt. Free trade, rampant consumerism and domestic security by any means necessary are the path these men have set themselves on and they will rationalize all behavior as acceptable if it will bring about these goals.

Well, ironically those aren’t such bad goals, if you go for the right energy source to feed those objectives. The bad thing about those Neocon nitwits is that, even though they believed in being able to achieve generations of American hegemony, as far as going for the fuel to feed their great empire, all they could think of was oil—a resource that is going to run out anyway in just a little while, and then what?

If at the same time that they were going as ruthlessly into Iraq to secure the last of the oil they had also set up agendas for alternative energy sources of abundance then I might have actually become the greatest fan of these guys, because I might have believed they were actually on to something grand. But the fact that all they could think of was to secure the last low-hanging fossil fuel fruit and had no further plans as to what to do then convinced me that their schemes for a great American empire were actually pathetic and doomed from the start. Even if the Iraq occupation had worked and they had actually been able to pump the oil out of there in relative peace, there would have been no future in any of those ventures…





Ool added to this post, 36 minutes and 6 seconds later...

[…] Sure, not terribly scientific but the point is that it can happen to any group of people if you enact that right sort of group think.

Well, the problem is that adhering to the norms of society and being obedient to authority actually increased people’s odds at survival even at times when they were part of a stupid, evil, or even self-destructive tribe. Being in company and accepted by that company and its social hierarchy was still safer than being all alone out there in the wilderness.

That is why there will always be people willing to be the tools of ruthless, power-hungry people. That is why there will always be a God in the minds of many people. A secure tribe with a strong paternal leader was the best possible environment for us primates for longer than we’ve been walking on two legs.

Yes, it can be shocking if the powers that be suddenly turn abusive towards you or send you on ill-conceived raids against other tribes and it turns out you’re not quite as safe within the social structure than you thought you were. But, considering the alternative, that was still a gamble worth taking—particularly considering individuals don’t live forever anyway, and the greater chances of mating and producing offspring within a community make the genes of the sycophants survive more easily even if the sycophants themselves don’t…

[replicant]

I think George Bush is probably like many other people - smart in some areas, dumb in others.

He cannot think well on his feet. His ability to use the English Language is debatable.

His values are not my values, and I get very offended by his religious pandering. It's disrepectful to the concept of freedom of religion. I get peeved about the "In God We Trust" and tying God in with government. The word God is not found in the Constitution. The In God We Trust and all the more immediate God pandering came from the 1950s I believe, may be wrong but I know its not an old concept.

And I am not foolish not to know there have been ties to God and government throughout time but I feel since my birth, its been really thrown in my face especially by Bush's reign.

I don't appreciate the man nor the people behind him. Congress is a very disappointing group of people.

Testy subject for me. I feel the man is not progressive and has help to establish more intrusive government (i.e. Patriot Act). Businesses run amuck (i.e. deregulation). Our economy is suffering. We are in more debt than ever and our public education is in a critical meltdown. We do not have enough scientists, engineers, etc.

Bush is often a puppet for others and who can occasionally make a smart*** remark.

He can't control his body language and his diplomacy skills are that of an inebriated goat.

[Aronnax]

Well, ironically those aren’t such bad goals, if you go for the right energy source to feed those objectives. The bad thing about those Neocon nitwits is that, even though they believed in being able to achieve generations of American hegemony, as far as going for the fuel to feed their great empire, all they could think of was oil—a resource that is going to run out anyway in just a little while, and then what?


Then the magic of the free market takes over. Since the dollar has been protected US businesses have the capital base to develop said technology. Oil is still cheaper than electric cars and windmills/PV cells. They're insuring that cheap energy in he form of oil will remain available as a stopgap to allow the transition to take place.

Sure, the ~500 billion dollars the US has spent in Iraq could have been invested domestically developing other energy sources but that would be forcing the market and Neocons want nothing to do with Keynes.

[schwartzie]

Oil is still cheaper than electric cars and windmills/PV cells.

Actually the differential is getting remarkably small for some of the alternative resources used to make electricity. Wind tech has, under subsidization, developed nicely. e.g. we now know that the relation of height to power/cost of wind and wind towers is not linear. The last 10-20 feet generates huge increases in power. That means construction cost is the financial constraint, and new materials/designs/methods are developing nicely. The same is happening in other alt fuels. Energy policy is an area where concepts of "free markets" and deregulation do not work. Witness california's debacle.

The GWB admin has made tiny steps in this area of development of alt fuels, and instead,other governmental bodies have taken much of the lead. GWB people are STILL advocating dereg, even in the face of their prior failures.

[Aronnax]

Actually the differential is getting remarkably small for some of the alternative resources used to make electricity. Wind tech has, under subsidization, developed nicely. e.g. we now know that the relation of height to power/cost of wind and wind towers is not linear. The last 10-20 feet generates huge increases in power. That means construction cost is the financial constraint, and new materials/designs/methods are developing nicely. The same is happening in other alt fuels. Energy policy is an area where concepts of "free markets" and deregulation do not work. Witness california's debacle.

The GWB admin has made tiny steps in this area of development of alt fuels, and instead,other governmental bodies have taken much of the lead. GWB people are STILL advocating dereg, even in the face of their prior failures.

I know, and California is still paying for that deregulation mess. The essential services for modern life do very poorly on an unregulated market. The scale necessitates a monopoly or a near monopoly and there's no price where the consumer can walk away.

The crunch on transportation energy isn't on the production side (on a joule vs joule basis the outlet is cheaper than the pump) the biggest problem is battery technology. Right now an unsubsidized battery powered car costs about twice what a gas powered vehicle does and has a shorter range. I'm assuming the vehicles are comparable, so a 4 passenger vehicle compared to a 4 passenger vehicle opposed to a 3 wheel 1 seater electric vs an SUV. Batteries are getting better, nanophosphate Li-Ion batteries are very promising and it looks like they'll be used for transportation within this decade.

The limits on electricity are production, we don't have enough electricity production (yet) to compensate for 21 million barrels of oil per day. For a total phase out of oil we'd have to generate ~36 billion Kw/Hr daily over our current capacity. A lot of this is just infrastructure, we can build that but we better get started soon.

The hurdles are primarily a problem of capital and political will, most of the engineering problems have been solved. I think the current administration knows about the problems but only see the free market as an acceptable solution. Their transition is going to involve a "market correction" and it looks like that correction is going to hurt. We've got about 20 years to figure it out, hopefully the US will elect leaders with long term vision who aren't afraid of Keynesian policies.

[meanlittlechimp]

Think about the question you asked me for a minute: "why the leadership chose to go in and wants to stay" and I told you what their reasons were. They really believe that the free market is the solution to all the world's problems. They believe that spreading Democracy will make the world our allies.


Ok I think there is a disconnect here with the semantics. Assassinations and coups is the OPPOSITE of democracy. Saying they believe in spreading democracy by overthrowing them and replacing them with puppet governments is not how you go about spreading democracy.

Stealing oil via military expenditure is NOT a free market solution. Neither is stealing resources from Latin America through various corrupt dictactorships we propped up. We squash pro democracy movements in Latin America historically. You totally lost me on how this democracy spreading is done. Shooting political leaders in the night with our CIA backed mercenaries?

I'm having trouble understanding what you are talking about. If you're saying they are machivaellean and use the "spreading democracy" line as a PR tactic, I'm with you. To say they really are spreading democracy, or even have that as a policy goal, makes no sense - since you seem aware of the history.

[phantasma]

I'm just surprised that the government kept going with that policy after it failed. For example, the assasination of Patrice Lumumba in Zaire, Iran, and many other US-transplanted governements around the world which haven't done so well since.

[Aronnax]

The explanation is going to get sloppy because it's explaining how this gets rationalized and rationalization isn't logical. There's no blanket explanation because each case falls into a different category in their hierarchy of values. Bear with me here, I'm going to break this up and try to address your points.

Ok I think there is a disconnect here with the semantics. Assassinations and coups is the OPPOSITE of democracy. Saying they believe in spreading democracy by overthrowing them and replacing them with puppet governments is not how you go about spreading democracy.


A dictatorship who trades with US corporations is preferable to a socialist democracy. Neocons would prefer a democracy but this decision is shaped by how it effects the US. Trade with the US has a greater bearing on the US economy than how the people of that nation are governed. When the dictator dies they'll try again for a democracy that will play ball (a capitalist democracy).


Stealing oil via military expenditure is NOT a free market solution.

Iraq's oil fields were underdeveloped because of multiple wars and the oil for food program stifled the incentive for additional development. After removing Saddam it became politically acceptable to buy large amounts of Iraqi oil. The open bid process to develop the Iraqi oil fields allowed foreign investors into an area that had traditionally been under national control. The military action itself wasn't a free market solution but by using military action it brought Iraq's resources onto the market. Otherwise the world would still be laboring under the oil for food restrictions, making back door deals to get around them and dealing with Iraq's limited production capacity. In 10 years Iraq's oil will be all over the market, under Saddam (or his sons) the same level of production and trade wouldn't be possible.


Neither is stealing resources from Latin America through various corrupt dictactorships we propped up. We squash pro democracy movements in Latin America historically. You totally lost me on how this democracy spreading is done. Shooting political leaders in the night with our CIA backed mercenaries?

This explanation goes back to my earlier response about how the government effects the US being more important than how it effects the locals. Protect our market, then our government, then their market (because it effects our market) then their government (value based on how friendly they are to our government).


I'm having trouble understanding what you are talking about. If you're saying they are machivaellean and use the "spreading democracy" line as a PR tactic, I'm with you. To say they really are spreading democracy, or even have that as a policy goal, makes no sense - since you seem aware of the history.

It's both.

There's a hierarchy of value, "spreading democracy" is used as PR tactic but on some level they really believe that is the ultimate goal. The long term plan for the Neoconservative is to protect the US because that's the basis of their ideology and power. From there markets must be established, increasing global wealth through free trade and spreading US culture. Enemies of these goals must be eliminated and replaced with leaders who are more friendly towards their basis of power. Capitalist democracies are the preferred solution because they're the most likely to support this policy beyond a single generation. The Neoconservative vision of utopia is a world filled with capitalist democracies who have become rich through free trade.

[schwartzie]

The explanation is going to get sloppy ...

Aronnax, because you seem to be on a roll, would you be willing to offer a summary of your thoughts about the benefits/harms of patriotism as an ideology in, say, the US? (or other countries, if you prefer)

[Motor Jax]

every time i see this thread, i only wonder about his type

what type is he, anyways?

i think ENTP

[Ool]

[…] The Neoconservative vision of utopia is a world filled with capitalist democracies who have become rich through free trade.

It does overlook the fact, though, that climate, geography, and resources play a huge part in how rich a country is. I mean, what are you going to trade in a country where you can grow hardly anything, where there are no resources in the ground, and which is not en route between places that have things to trade, thus offering itself for a trading post?

If you really want to make the whole world rich then ideology may play a part, but what you really have to develop is cheap, clean energy. With cheap energy you could desalinate all the water you like and irrigate the deserts. You could grow food under adverse conditions, creating artificial climates. You could build air-conditioned homes, offices, factories, in which working is even possible. It was only after the invention of ACs that the American South and Southwest became even attractive for anything other than cotton plantations, movie sets, and nuclear testing grounds…

But without the cheap energy some places are so inhospitable that they’ll always remain the problem children of the world.

And oil is not so cheap and not so abundant that you could make it happen through that. It’s certainly not clean enough.

This idea that an economic revolution could void the laws of physics is quite insane, actually. As Berthold Brecht used to say, “grub first, politics later.” I’m not even a fan of the guy, but I think he happens to be right in that respect…

[Aronnax]

Aronnax, because you seem to be on a roll, would you be willing to offer a summary of your thoughts about the benefits/harms of patriotism as an ideology in, say, the US? (or other countries, if you prefer)

The properties of patriotism depend on it's driver.

The more common form of patriotism, a pride in your nation, in an abstract sense is value neutral. Unwavering national pride allows the leader to use such an individual as a tool of the state. The benefit and danger of such thinking depends on the morals and motives of the leaders.This kind of patriotism is a powerful tool and like all powerful tools, can be very destructive. Taken as a whole I'd rather not deal with this form of patriotism, unquestioning masses who submit to authority make me nervous.

The other form of patriotism is a pride in the values of your nation. This would be a loyalty to the concepts of the nation rather than the leadership itself. This type of patriotism can act as a philosophical anchor and in a Democracy, limit the power of the leadership. Loyalty to ideas rather than a specific entity is the stronger form of patriotism. You cannot break an idea the same way you can break an army or a nation. The benefit or danger posed by this form of patriotism depends entirely on the fundamental values of the nation. For the US I'd say this form of patriotism is a net positive. Locke's philosophies allow for peaceful coexistence and establish enough structure for cooperation. Unwaivering loyalty to a different set of founding principles, say, the principles of the Khmer Rouge, would be a horror.

[azelismia]

every time i see this thread, i only wonder about his type

what type is he, anyways?

i think ENTP


he doesn't strike me as a thinking type.

[xtremegeek]

Bush is a stupid, puppet leader who was illegaly brought into power by several very, very myopic INTJ masterminds - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice. They had the 'real' power and connections, Bush had the money and some connections. Those 4 INTJs found their ideal minion to take over the world and his name is Bush.

Four INTJs in a room fighting, is soooo much better than four INTJs in a room plotting.

[schwartzie]

The properties of patriotism depend on it's driver.

The more common form of patriotism, a pride in your nation, in an abstract sense is value neutral.
The other form of patriotism is a pride in the values of your nation. This would be a loyalty to the concepts of the nation rather than the leadership itself.
I ask because there are theoreticians who argue that even the latter form of patriotism should be seen as unhelpful because it fails to permit the curbing of the excesses in the process of globalization.

[Aronnax]

I ask because there are theoreticians who argue that even the latter form of patriotism should be seen as unhelpful because it fails to permit the curbing of the excesses in the process of globalization.

I agree with the sentiment that Locke's natural rights don't curb excess and that is a definite drawback. Ideas like "unused property is waste and an offense against nature" are no longer practical. On the other hand the protection of liberty makes it difficult for our leadership to use the US military as an overt tool for empire. There's a lot of monkey buisness with market manipulation, world bank loan conditions and assassinations but compared to what the US could do it's relatively tame. Consider the implications of a 1945 USA, the only nuclear power in the world, disregarding the belief in the individual's right to life and property. The idea of a preemptive atomic attack on the communist nations was pushed by more than one general. I believe that dedication to the founding principles of this nation are what prevented Truman from taking the advice of Patton and MacArthur.

In a perfect world everyone would think for themselves but based on humanity's long history I'm not sure if that's possible. It's certainly something to strive for but right now the majority want a guiding set of principles. Even on a message board populated by "thinkers" you can see how many are willing to swallow an entire belief set without a single objection or change. An example of this is the "As an INTJ what do you think about homosexuality?" thread. Very few formed an objection to homosexuality on their own, instead their distaste stems from an ancient belief set they adopted.

Locke's position that no one "has a right to harm another’s life, health, liberty, or possessions" is a critical stepping stone for where I believe humanity has to go in order to survive. We live in a world where every nation will eventually have the ability to develop atomic weapons, preservation of peace is of the utmost importance. From there learning to only take what you need and equitable treatment of your neighbors can grow. Even as "advanced" as we are our culture is a child. First we need to teach it not to hit, from there it can learn how to share and say thank you. Maybe someday thought will become advanced enough that everyone will understand why these things are important but right now ideologies still have a role to play.

[azelismia]

Arronax, I just did a quick scan of that thread.. I think this comes down to perception. I didn't count them but my perception was that most of the blurbs were saying live and let live, there were very few posters who were against it comparatively to those who were neutral or for it.

[Aronnax]

I didn't do a very good job of expanding that thought. What I was getting at was the majority of the objectors in that thread did so only because it's an extension of an ancient belief system they adopted. They didn't object to homosexuality at large, marriage or adoption because it threatened them, instead the objections stemmed from an abstraction. Unconditional acceptance of an entire thought structure is comparatively rare for thinking types but even then it's not difficult to find.

Total acceptance of an ideology seems to be part of the human condition and looks like it will continue to be for some time to come. What I hope is humanity will adopt a pattern of continually improving their ideologies until we've outgrown the need for them. This explanation feels kind of clunky, do you see what I'm trying to say here?

[azelismia]

I didn't do a very good job of expanding that thought. What I was getting at was the majority of the objectors in that thread did so only because it's an extension of an ancient belief system they adopted. They didn't object to homosexuality at large, marriage or adoption because it threatened them, instead the objections stemmed from an abstraction. Unconditional acceptance of an entire thought structure is comparatively rare for thinking types but even then it's not difficult to find.

Total acceptance of an ideology seems to be part of the human condition and looks like it will continue to be for some time to come. What I hope is humanity will adopt a pattern of continually improving their ideologies until we've outgrown the need for them. This explanation feels kind of clunky, do you see what I'm trying to say here?

Let me put on my mind reading helmet and we'll see....

you're saying you don't think there is a lot of analysis of personal belief systems in the human mind, but you hope against hope that maybe we'll start doing that as part of a future evolution process?????

personally I doubt it. Christianty is still hanging on at least 1000 years after it outgrew it's usefulness. I think most humans just don't have the bandwidth for finding their own path. it's too scary to forge out alone in the realms of the mind. We are pack animals. the weakest of the pack are culled out. no one wants to be that weakest member and that's how they might be perceived if they go against the thought patterns of the alphas. The alphas don't want to disturb those standardized paths in case the others perceive it as disorderly and start challenging them. that's why new thought has always been so slow going.

[Karamazov]

Total acceptance of an ideology seems to be part of the human condition and looks like it will continue to be for some time to come. What I hope is humanity will adopt a pattern of continually improving their ideologies until we've outgrown the need for them.

Fat chance I'm afraid


personally I doubt it. Christianty is still hanging on at least 1000 years after it outgrew it's usefulness. I think most humans just don't have the bandwidth for finding their own path. it's too scary to forge out alone in the realms of the mind. We are pack animals. the weakest of the pack are culled out. no one wants to be that weakest member and that's how they might be perceived if they go against the thought patterns of the alphas. The alphas don't want to disturb those standardized paths in case the others perceive it as disorderly and start challenging them. that's why new thought has always been so slow going.

I'd say that veritable boat has sailed away a long time ago but I agree with the general reluctance to deviate from those established norms. It would seem more so that Orthodoxy and organized religion instill that strain of guilt amongst the populace, rather than the essence of Christianity itself, so they may never question the established ecclesiastical conception of those beliefs, instead of thinking for themselves.

[Aronnax]

Let me put on my mind reading helmet and we'll see....

you're saying you don't think there is a lot of analysis of personal belief systems in the human mind, but you hope against hope that maybe we'll start doing that as part of a future evolution process?????

personally I doubt it. Christianty is still hanging on at least 1000 years after it outgrew it's usefulness. I think most humans just don't have the bandwidth for finding their own path. it's too scary to forge out alone in the realms of the mind. We are pack animals. the weakest of the pack are culled out. no one wants to be that weakest member and that's how they might be perceived if they go against the thought patterns of the alphas. The alphas don't want to disturb those standardized paths in case the others perceive it as disorderly and start challenging them. that's why new thought has always been so slow going.

Looks like the mind reading helmet is working today, did you add more aluminum foil recently?

Cognitive dissonance has slowly beaten older belief systems into something more practical. There's a backlash from these belief systems but even that is slowly being muted.

Will we ever become a species of independent thinkers? I doubt it, but it's something to work towards and we've got lots of time provided we don't blow ourselves up.

[thod]

Ha ha. The average American is just so familiar with people like Locke, after all they read an average 4 books a day and no fiction.

You know what, the average man doesn't give a damn. He doesn't care about the world or other people. All he cares about is his life and his bit of the world. You can explain how a system makes his bit safer and more prosperous and he wont care.

Its better to be a king in a poor land than a slave in a rich land. As long as his lot is better than the other guys he is happy. It doesn't matter if America reverts to the stone age, just so long as he emerges as a chieftain. He prefers that outcome than living as a drone in a centrally planned hive where he his choices are zero.

[Chisos]

OK, I'm going to jump into the middle of this post, without reading any of the others--so what I say may have been said already. Anyway,

I do not know whether or not he is stupid. You have to figure that anyone who can get to where he is could not be a moron.

Buuuut, I will step out on a limb, and say he either has one of the stupidest administrations I've seen in my life--or one of the most corrupt and despicable in the history of this nation. Probably the latter.

What is my rationale? It is because so much has flat gone to Hell in a handbasket, and he's at the switch. And, in the same step, some small groups have made out like bandits from everyone else's misfortune.

The Dollar is WEAK!; Oil is UNBELIEVABLY HIGH, and who knows where it will go. We are in a war we can never win. We are spending squilliions of dollars on that war. He has the biggest a**ho#@e of the world as his Vice President--and that Vice President is a person who does not care for anything or anyone who does not directly benefit his own personal agenda--and the general public is not something that he loses any sleep over. OK. guess who "hired" that VP. You got it--Mr. Pres. (well, more or less).

Man, I've had it with: (i) it taking $100.00 to fill up with fuel; (ii) food prices that seem to have jumped 20% in a year; (iii) health insurance that jumps monthly in price (both in actual monthly cost, and in bigger co-pays) of about 20% per year; (iv) fundamentalist religious folks thinking that they have the answer to all of our problems, because the "Lord" spoke to them--and thus they can rationalize any act that suits their plan; (v) income going down because the economy is stuck in low gear; (vi) the financial system sucking air; (vii) the real estate market sucking air; etc. etc.;

One thing for certain--Mr. Bush, I'm sure much to his embarrassment, gives the appearance of being extremely stupid in public. That makes it easy to conclude he is stupid.

I can say with certainty that he has made some collosal bad decisions that have totally screwed our country, and our people. So perhaps the real question is, how do you characterize someone who makes terrible decisions like he has made? Well, lets just say that at the very least, he is not upper management material.

Hey, who hired this guy?

[Ool]

[…] We are in a war we can never win. We are spending squilliions of dollars on that war. […]

Occupation, actually.

But it’s a common mistake to call it a war…

[Octavianus Caesar]

A lot has happened over the last seven years, 9/11 to two wars and other events. I think most people are looking at this from a short sighted view of "Woe is me" and then blame the president.

The big picture is that the world changed on 9/11, it ripped open the false dream that America lived in during the 1990's, we were exposed to events that have never landed on our shore, so the events that followed 9/11 are the unintended consequences of 9/11 and war.

That when the US went to WAR, the world decided to go to war with the US and they chose economic warfare. Rise of Oil being the biggest weapon.

The Islamic World views itself as Muslim first and an Infidel nation invades two of them, there must be some sort of response by the Islamic world toward America, and the one thing is OIL, hit America where it hurts, its pocketbook. They publicly condemn America, while privately support us, while shooting up the price of oil

Now I think OIL is running out, Bush says for the first time the Middle East needs to diversify from oil. Several Gulf States are now investing in Trade and Tourism, which leads me to conclude the know oil is running out.

Projection says by 2060, I think that is too far off, I think by 2025 oil in the middle east will run out or become unprofitable.

I think that is why there is this push for secondary resources, to get us off oil, because Congress realizes that oil is running out in the Middle East, some have jumped on this to "green" the process and make sure America does not become the major supplier of oil, which is very possible if we wanted to.

The big picture is, this is not really Bush's fault, but the world's reaction to several events and the consequence is prices go up.

[Ool]

Its better to be a king in a poor land than a slave in a rich land. […]

Depends on how poor and how rich, actually. I could imagine it to be the other way around in extreme circumstances…

At the very least it can be better to be middle class in an extremely wealthy, developed society than to be a monarch in an extremely poor, underdeveloped one. Don’t believe me? Well, would you rather be a well-off person with good dental, a big screen TV, internet access, etc. today or would you give it all up to be a king or emperor in, say, 10th century Europe…?

[thod]

would you rather be a well-off person with good dental, a big screen TV, internet access, etc

I wouldn't spend so much time on these things if I had 100 concubines :) Besides I could always go off on a peasant hunt in the royal forest. So OK I live in a rich land, but I still have to clean my place, whats with all that, I should have a slave to do it.

[phantasma]

"Projection says by 2060, I think that is too far off, I think by 2025 oil in the middle east will run out or become unprofitable. "

Funny thing is that this estimate keeps changing. Either the people making these estimates are incompetent, or there's more oil in the middle east than they want us to know about.

[Octavianus Caesar]

"Projection says by 2060, I think that is too far off, I think by 2025 oil in the middle east will run out or become unprofitable. "

Funny thing is that this estimate keeps changing. Either the people making these estimates are incompetent, or there's more oil in the middle east than they want us to know about.

Or less. . .

[Aronnax]

That when the US went to WAR, the world decided to go to war with the US and they chose economic warfare. Rise of Oil being the biggest weapon.

For a guy who claims to like the free market you sure don't know much about it. India and China are buying oil now, this makes demand go up. World oil reserves are finite and there hasn't been a major oil field discovery for decades, supply is going down. What happens to price when demand goes up and supply goes down?

To further complicate the issue the US has been heavily deficit spending since Reagan was in office. We took a short break from deficit spending under Clinton but for the most part we've been "running up" our economic credit card via fiat money for over 25 years now. The net effect is the value of the dollar is being eroded, reducing it's purchasing power. Everything you use the dollar to buy now takes more dollars, oil included. Furthermore the erosion of the dollar is pressuring investors (many of them American) to move their money out of dollars and into commodities like oil barrels, driving the price of oil even higher. I've watched what Bush has been doing to the dollar with his refusal to veto the bloated budgets of congress and bought oil and silver late 2001. That initial investment has quadrupled in 7 years. I'm not that wealthy nor unique, smart investors have been moving out of dollars into long term commodities for nearly a decade now.

There's no economic boogyman out to get the US, we did this to ourselves.


I think that is why there is this push for secondary resources, to get us off oil, because Congress realizes that oil is running out in the Middle East, some have jumped on this to "green" the process and make sure America does not become the major supplier of oil, which is very possible if we wanted to.


This again? Spend 5 minutes with Google, check global oil consumption, obtainable US reserves and perform some simple arithmetic. It's not possible for the US to become the major supplier of oil. Our excess disappeared decades ago.

[Octavianus Caesar]

For a guy who claims to like the free market you sure don't know much about it. India and China are buying oil now, this makes demand go up. World oil reserves are finite and there hasn't been a major oil field discovery for decades, supply is going down. What happens to price when demand goes up and supply goes down?

To further complicate the issue the US has been heavily deficit spending since Reagan was in office. We took a short break from deficit spending under Clinton but for the most part we've been "running up" our economic credit card via fiat money for over 25 years now. The net effect is the value of the dollar is being eroded, reducing it's purchasing power. Everything you use the dollar to buy now takes more dollars, oil included. Furthermore the erosion of the dollar is pressuring investors (many of them American) to move their money out of dollars and into commodities like oil barrels, driving the price of oil even higher. I've watched what Bush has been doing to the dollar with his refusal to veto the bloated budgets of congress and bought oil and silver late 2001. That initial investment has quadrupled in 7 years. I'm not that wealthy nor unique, smart investors have been moving out of dollars into long term commodities for nearly a decade now.

There's no economic boogyman out to get the US, we did this to ourselves.



This again? Spend 5 minutes with Google, check global oil consumption, obtainable US reserves and perform some simple arithmetic. It's not possible for the US to become the major supplier of oil. Our excess disappeared decades ago.

If America used everything that we had and there was no restriction, like you have brought up, then yes, America would be the number one producer of oil. But because of the environmental restrictions and other such things, we can not reach full capacity.

I am aware of China and India buying oil, I am not ignorant of that fact. But i find interesting is that after 9/11 and after the invasions the price of oil started rising. Could be coincidence, then again, maybe it was not.

[thod]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So oil is not high when priced in gold. Now you may say that measuring one commodity against another. The flaw in this that dollars too are a commodity, not some fixed baseline. As you can see it hasn't risen so much in Euros but has still risen.

The reason is that they have flooded the world with dollars. They have printed fewer Euros and gold not at all. The falling dollar has resulted in everything increasing, check out your grocery store prices to confirm it.

The interest rate in your bank account is increasing your number of dollars. Yet this is less than the increase in the total number of dollars. Thus your purchasing power declines. The smart money knows this and has been fleeing the dollar pushing it further down. That money is going into things like gold, because they cant print any more.

It was not supply and demand that caused oil to rise, it was dollar flight. It will not be supply and demand that makes it come down. It will come down when that money finds a better home to move to.

[Octavianus Caesar]

It was not supply and demand that caused oil to rise, it was dollar flight. It will not be supply and demand that makes it come down. It will come down when that money finds a better home to move to.

:thumbsup: Good point, I was not aware of that.

[Ool]

"Projection says by 2060, I think that is too far off, I think by 2025 oil in the middle east will run out or become unprofitable. "

Funny thing is that this estimate keeps changing. Either the people making these estimates are incompetent, or there's more oil in the middle east than they want us to know about.

That’s because it’s never going to run out completely. There’s always going to some left in the ground. It’ll just be harder and harder to retrieve. And that date is, indeed, very hard to fix down, because it’s at the end of the bell curve and dependent on many variables, such as geopolitical situations, the state of the world economy up until that date, and new technologies that allow us to retrieve what’s left either slower or faster.

It’s also a rather irrelevant date, because the important point in time is the one when it’s peaking, and that’s likely today or less than ten years in the future. Once it’s peaked demand outstrips supply and the prices go through the roof.

Today’s high prices are exacerbated by a speculative bubble in anticipation of that peak, so it’s hard to tell whether the peak has already occurred or whether we’re going to have a short reprieve after the bubble bursts and before the peak is going to hit us for real.





Ool added to this post, 34 minutes and 33 seconds later...

It was not supply and demand that caused oil to rise, it was dollar flight. It will not be supply and demand that makes it come down. It will come down when that money finds a better home to move to.

Yes. The problem is, gold isn’t going to be that home because it doesn’t inflate even a little bit. The amount of gold available is pretty static, meaning that if a gold standard were adopted then as the economy grows your cash would become more valuable, because it would remain the same amount for ever more plentiful goods.

In other words you’d have a deflation.

But that’s lethal as far as incentivizing people to invest in production is concerned, since it is often a safer bet not to invest your money at all and just to wait for others to grow the economy, resulting in your uninvested money to be worth more. So this system would reward those who do not invest in the economy, choosing to stuff their mattresses with their money instead, while it punishes those who do spend their money on productive but not immensely profitable ventures, as well as those who are forced to spend what little they earn just to make ends meet, and who are unlikely to see a wage increase in a system where people have chosen to hoard their wealth and no Federal Reserve is able to add more coins and notes…

[Aronnax]

If America used everything that we had and there was no restriction, like you have brought up, then yes, America would be the number one producer of oil. But because of the environmental restrictions and other such things, we can not reach full capacity.

I've explained this a few times already but since you'd rather repeat what you've heard instead of running the numbers I'll do it for you.

I wave my magic wand and we instantly build all the hard infrastructure needed to convert oil shale into oil at any production rate we desire.

First lets see if the US can simply meet it's own domestic demand for oil:

(21 X10^6 barrels per day) X (42 gallons in a barrel) X (365 days/year) = 3.2193 X10^11 gallons of oil consumed a year.

In order to process oil shale into oil it takes about 3 gallons of water for every gallon of oil or 9.6579 X 10^11 gallons of water. There are 325851 gallons of water per acre/ft so 2.9639 X 10^6 acre feet of water required to process the shale every year.


Now lets see how much of the Colorado river we can use to meet the water demands for all this shale processing:

The Colorado river has an average annual flow of 1.5 X 10^7 acre feet to of water. Hey, looks good, we'd still have about 1.2 X 10^7 acre/ft of water left after all the shale processing. Well, lets see how much water the southwest uses first.

Under the Law of the Colorado River Compact:

Mexico is apportioned 1.5 X 10^6 acre feet.

The "upper basin" (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) are apportioned 7.5 X 10^6 acre feet.

The "lower basin" (Arizona, California and Nevada) are apportioned 7.5 X 10^6 acre feet.

In other words we don't even have enough water to meet the current apportionment (1.65 X10^7 acre/ft) in an average year. Reality reinforces this fact, most years the Colorado doesn't actually make it to the sea.

If we decided to cut Mexico out entirely we couldn't meet half of the demands of processing shale for domestic consumption, much less become the world's oil producer. This ignores the energy demands and labor costs associated with the sulfuric acid, mercury and lead disposal issues after processing. This is an ideal situation and even under ideal conditions there isn't enough water capacity.

There are pipe dreams and there's reality, the reality is there are no practical engineering solution to turn our shale reserves into enough oil to match our oil consumption. There are engineering solutions for our energy needs but they don't require traditional fuels because quite frankly, unless that fuel is uranium there's no way to meet our long term energy demands using a fuel.



I am aware of China and India buying oil, I am not ignorant of that fact. But i find interesting is that after 9/11 and after the invasions the price of oil started rising. Could be coincidence, then again, maybe it was not.

There's no coincidence, it's market forces in action. The dollar is weakening and when war is coming to the middle east oil speculation always increases. There's no global conspiracy, everyone in the world is paying more for oil. If you buy oil in euros it didn't go up as much but that's because Europe doesn't have a 9.3 trillion dollar debt leaning against it's currency.

[thod]

Yes. The problem is, gold isn’t going to be that home because it doesn’t inflate even a little bit. The amount of gold available is pretty static, meaning that if a gold standard were adopted then as the economy grows your cash would become more valuable, because it would remain the same amount for ever more plentiful goods.
.
.
.


I will have to restate some theory here. The idea of growth is that an economy will create more goods and services over time. This is due to increased scientific and technical knowledge and investment in production machinery. Thus if 1 unit of currency today buys you one unit of production then in the future it will buy you 2 units of production. Thus prices will drop and you are better off saving. To prevent this you create more currency units so that prices of production units remain static. So 1 saved currency unit will still buy 1 production unit.

But lets look again at something like gold which is a fixed physical amount. If I save in currency units, I gain nothing. If I convert into gold, then convert back when I wish to buy, I gain the full benefits of the deflation as before. All you have done is made saving in currency units a bad choice. It doesn't have to be gold, it could be land or anything else which is fixed. So the idea of preventing deflationary saving has not worked.

Now consider that I make one green widget a day which I can sell for $1. My neighbor makes one red widget a day which he can also sell for $1. So we can trade, each using 1 days worth of each others labor.

In 20 years we have both improved and can now make 2 widgets a day. On a fixed gold standard they would be priced at 50c each. Since we have monetized to keep them at $1 each, we each make $2 a day. Thus the $1 I saved, which was a full days work, now only buys me half a days work off my neighbor. Thus I can still buy 1 widget, but my purchasing power in time terms has decreased. I could now save $2 a day. What this means is that money saved in the past actually has less value then money saved today.

If you are older than most here you will have noticed this. What took you a lot of time to save 20 years ago is now almost worthless. The only way you can counter this is by placing risking the cash for growth. You can do this directly yourself or you can do it via an interest bearing bank account, the bank invests for you. The aggregate returns of all people doing this can still never exceed growth if you are to avoid inflation.

Thus the inflation of money is a means to force people to invest to preserve the value of that money. You can get the average return simply by holding gold etc, you can get more or less depending on your investment skill. Yet there is an added cost here. All those bankers and economists take a cut so you need to create additional money over growth to allow the investor to preserve value.

The simple fact is that the gold standard worked for most of history. Not a single fiat system ever has, and many have tried. The temptation to create too much money to pay for things has corrupted them all. Gold does increase, but very slowly.

The fiat system distorts markets, whoever gets to spend first buys goods at the old prices. As the markets get used to the new amount of money prices rise. This is the banks, which is why they are so keen on it. Yet if we had a fair system prices would never rise. Only enough new money would enter to keep prices stable.

Overall the evils of a gold standard seem less to me than those of a fiat system. There are no real booms and busts for example. There can be no credit bubbles since for every borrower there must be a lender. I am attracted to the stories I have read that a solider was paid sixpence a day, a hundred years later, a soldiers pay was exactly the same. No need for all these wage negotiations each year. The gold standard seemed to bring stability. The industrial revolution seemed to do very well under it, so the argument that it prevents investment is moot.

The big winners seem to government and bankers. They get to manipulate us in the form of hidden tax via inflation and first use. They have created a slave society where you enter debt with education fees and then via a mortgage. You cannot ever stop working for them. In the past a man was free of debts. He would save to buy what he wanted. This was always the objective, the creation of a slave society.

Dont even get me started on fractional reserve banking, that another subject. The one thing the bankers do not want is for people to disregard their paper and return to things like precious metals. If that ever happens their power goes. Their lackeys in government go alone with them so long as they get to spend some too.

End Rant.

[Aronnax]

Overall the evils of a gold standard seem less to me than those of a fiat system. There are no real booms and busts for example.



The gold standard makes the bust portion brutal because there's no way to jump start the economy if it completely collapses. It exaggerates runs on currency durring a recession, further limiting investment capital.

Down the line nations that weren't on the gold standard mostly escaped the great depression. Nations that abandoned the gold standard in the early 30's escaped the worst of the great depression and nations like the US and France that clung to the gold standard the longest suffered the most.

Arguing against fiat money because it can be used irresponsibly is like arguing against fire. Gold is available for purchase if you want stability but there are legitimate reasons for fiat money, especially in a modern economy.

[Ool]

Down the line nations that weren't on the gold standard mostly escaped the great depression. Nations that abandoned the gold standard in the early 30's escaped the worst of the great depression and nations like the US and France that clung to the gold standard the longest suffered the most.

And then there was the German Weimar Republic, which printed money like crazy to repay its war reparations with worthless paper. Unfortunately it became worthless for everyone inside the country as well…

This is, of course, reminiscent to how the US is repaying its debt today…

[Aronnax]

And then there was the German Weimar Republic, which printed money like crazy to repay its war reparations with worthless paper. Unfortunately it became worthless for everyone inside the country as well…

This is, of course, reminiscent to how the US is repaying its debt today…

Just because some people are dumb enough to roll around in fire doesn't mean fire is inherently bad.

Germany was set up for failure, the amount of war reparations they were ordered to pay was going to crush them regardless of how they paid for them.

[Ool]

Arguing against fiat money because it can be used irresponsibly is like arguing against fire. […]

Or guns. :)

[Octavianus Caesar]

There's no coincidence, it's market forces in action. The dollar is weakening and when war is coming to the middle east oil speculation always increases. There's no global conspiracy, everyone in the world is paying more for oil. If you buy oil in euros it didn't go up as much but that's because Europe doesn't have a 9.3 trillion dollar debt leaning against it's currency.

You are missing my point or you are just assuming something i am saying.

America has the means to develop the oil Shale, and all i was saying if that happened America would be 100% independent and would be able to sell to the world.

That means developing everything, ANWR to Offshore drilling to Oil Shale.

Do not repeat the environmental argument I have read what you have said, all i am saying is IF AMERICA.

[Aronnax]

You are missing my point or you are just assuming something i am saying.

America has the means to develop the oil Shale, and all i was saying if that happened America would be 100% independent and would be able to sell to the world.

That means developing everything, ANWR to Offshore drilling to Oil Shale.

Do not repeat the environmental argument I have read what you have said, all i am saying is IF AMERICA.

No, you're missing my point, we don't have the means to develop that shale, there's not enough water to process it in a significant amount. Until someone finds the US another 3 million acre feet of water every year that doesn't involve desalination oil shale is a pipe dream.


ANWR is relatively small compared to our demand, offshore reserves are also comparatively small unless you include the arctic. The problems with the arctic is we can't drill there with existing technology because of the giant, oil platform smashing icebergs.

So besides the shale we don't have the water to process you'd be adding about a 2 year supply of oil offshore and under ANWR as well as a bunch of oil we can't extract that lies in the arctic circle. That's not enough to make the US independent, much less export it.

[foroneonly]

Bush is a poor communicator. I always wince when I hear him give a speech. Oratory skill does not necessarily equal intelligence. And the idea that someone can become President without being intelligent doesn't make any sense to me. On numerous occassions from Iraq to taxes he has consistenly moving Congress. How can you forget the 2006 promise of the Dems to get us out of Iraq? I think his cowboyish demeanor is somewhat of a ploy to get his opponents to underestimate him.

[thod]

Maybe I am paranoid. But atm my super psychic powers of future prediction are seeing apocalypse with a complete meltdown in the financial system coming.

I see most of the banks going down and any savings in them being lost. Most of the other financial institutions in the same boat as they take each other down in a domino effect. Massive destruction of wealth as the assets are sold at fire sale prices, social disruption with riots food shortages etc, hyperinflation of paper money etc.

I moving to counter this. Got no equities anymore, only cash is held in the government owned bank (cant default), bulk is in gold, mostly in Switzerland. Am even thinking its time to start filling the cupboards with canned food.

I read obscure sources about boring subjects in finance, when I connect the dots using my INTP brain, what I see is collapse. Its been collapsing since last year and the bits of string and sticky tape wont hold much longer. I dont know what will come after but there will be massive wealth destruction. So is it just me? am I paranoid?

[Octavianus Caesar]

No, you're missing my point, we don't have the means to develop that shale, there's not enough water to process it in a significant amount. Until someone finds the US another 3 million acre feet of water every year that doesn't involve desalination oil shale is a pipe dream.


ANWR is relatively small compared to our demand, offshore reserves are also comparatively small unless you include the arctic. The problems with the arctic is we can't drill there with existing technology because of the giant, oil platform smashing icebergs.

So besides the shale we don't have the water to process you'd be adding about a 2 year supply of oil offshore and under ANWR as well as a bunch of oil we can't extract that lies in the arctic circle. That's not enough to make the US independent, much less export it.

Peace dude :)

You make a good argument for why not, you really do.

But I do think if America wanted to develop it, we very well could, which means, there would be away to get the water there. But I think Canada has theirs develop, to a degree, and they oil shale someplace else, and it is developed there.

I saw one program where in Canada they were using dump trucks and other such construction to dig up the Oil in the "dirt" and then they processes it someplace else.





Octavianus Caesar added to this post, 1 minutes and 8 seconds later...

Bush is a poor communicator. I always wince when I hear him give a speech. Oratory skill does not necessarily equal intelligence. And the idea that someone can become President without being intelligent doesn't make any sense to me. On numerous occassions from Iraq to taxes he has consistenly moving Congress. How can you forget the 2006 promise of the Dems to get us out of Iraq? I think his cowboyish demeanor is somewhat of a ploy to get his opponents to underestimate him.


I agree with that.

[Ool]

[...] And the idea that someone can become President without being intelligent doesn't make any sense to me. [...]

It does to me.

If you live in a well-connected aristocratic family, giving you all the breaks...
If someone else, who would like to be president but who knows they can't be because they'd never pass the beauty pageant/popularity contest, thinks you might make a great figurehead, while they become the vice president and rule from the shadows, props you up and pushes you along, organizing the most shameless bunch of spin-masters...
If the electorate is so dumb they wouldn't notice how clueless and how cruel you are if you hit them over the head (literally), because they're natural born dim lynch mobbers themselves...

If all those conditions apply then it's entirely possible that a quite stupid person becomes the leader of a wealthy, decadent superpower in decline.

Maybe you ought to read Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and take a look at their succession of dim-witted emperors before you dismiss the idea out of hand that a stupid person can rise to power...!

[Octavianus Caesar]

Maybe you ought to read Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and take a look at their succession of dim-witted emperors before you dismiss the idea out of hand that a stupid person can rise to power...!

The idea that someone stupid entering the white house, does seem far fetch, but it has been known to happen. But most presidents are intelligent people. If one went by IQ some of the presidents are the highest and some are avg.

I came across a site that said: Bill Clinton was 150+ GWB 130-135 GHWB 119-125, Reagan 125, Jimmy Carter 130. Dick Cheney as 180, Hillary Clinton as 140+

But these smart people have all done dumb things.

[thod]

Arghhhh now I am even more paranoid. Dow down 400, oil and gold gone through the roof. Time to fill a backpack full of food, hang the shotgun over the shoulder, and head for the hills. Its all coming apart I tell ya.

[sriv]

Arghhhh now I am even more paranoid. Dow down 400, oil and gold gone through the roof. Time to fill a backpack full of food, hang the shotgun over the shoulder, and head for the hills. Its all coming apart I tell ya.

And to think people call themselves proud to be American. :wacko:

[Aronnax]

Arghhhh now I am even more paranoid. Dow down 400, oil and gold gone through the roof. Time to fill a backpack full of food, hang the shotgun over the shoulder, and head for the hills. Its all coming apart I tell ya.

IIRC the DOW was up about 400 yesterday at the closing bell. We both know why oil is up and about half the gain in precious metals over the last few years is because of speculation (the other half really is currency inflation). You can set the backpack down.

[sam988]

Well for sure he is not stupid. As much of a wingman that his father was to him, he would have to have some capacity. With that being said, he is also far from bright. He is just average, but was lucky (or unlucky? i wouldn't want to be president..) to have such a powerful family that could put him in high places with little effort of his own.

[schwartzie]

I wave my magic wand and we instantly build all the hard infrastructure needed to convert oil shale into oil at any production rate we desire. First lets see if the US can simply meet it's own domestic demand for oil:
(21 X10^6 barrels per day) X (42 gallons in a barrel) X (365 days/year) = 3.2193 X10^11 gallons of oil consumed a year.
...

There are pipe dreams and there's reality, the reality is there are no practical engineering solution to turn our shale reserves into enough oil to match our oil consumption. There are engineering solutions for our energy needs but they don't require traditional fuels because quite frankly, unless that fuel is uranium there's no way to meet our long term energy demands using a fuel.


Aronnax--want to take a look at the biomass problem? Here is a starter thread from Cringley, who this week turns from communications tech to energy:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(or maybe this is far enough afield that you want to start a new thread on alt energy?)

[bricklayer]

THE MAN IS AN IDIOT!

[azelismia]

THE MAN IS AN IDIOT!


I take exception to that.....

he's not a man at all is he? I thought he was a chimp!

Sheesh. get your species right!

[bricklayer]

I take exception to that.....

he's not a man at all is he? I thought he was a chimp!

Sheesh. get your species right!

Well put. Although then I think that Curious George would lose the title "Idiot" and have it replaced with "Remarkably Intelligent Primate who was Elected President".

[azelismia]

Well put. Although then I think that Curious George would lose the title "Idiot" and have it replaced with "Remarkably Intelligent Primate who was Elected President".

doesn't it feel good to put a positive spin on things?

He's not an idiot at all. He's a genius monkey! :)

[major757league]

Hands down he is 2nd smartest man in the world, his father is definitely the smartest man on earth. Not just because of his connections but what he has managed to take control of. These people are taking over the planet. As much that I hate its going to happen I must applaud him. It takes a smart man, more realistically a group of people, to accomplish such feats.

[Ool]

Hands down he is 2nd smartest man in the world, his father is definitely the smartest man on earth. Not just because of his connections but what he has managed to take control of. These people are taking over the planet. As much that I hate its going to happen I must applaud him. It takes a smart man, more realistically a group of people, to accomplish such feats.

Actually I would compare it a little to the feat of making a child as opposed to raising a child. The former is much easier than the latter. Coming to power in a country is one thing; running it well is another.

It is actually the latter than takes all the intelligence. The former might be accomplished by mere sneakiness…

Doesn’t the whole US sometimes appear to you like a foolish woman that’s in an abusive (and by now thoroughly disillusioned) relationship with some deadbeat narcissist, who managed to knock her up a few years ago? It does to me…

[thod]

he's not a man at all is he? I thought he was a chimp!


ha ha. He does seem to have some chimp like mannerisms in his face. Saw someone on TV the other day impersonating him as a chimp.

[schwartzie]

Doesn’t the whole US sometimes appear to you like a foolish woman that’s in an abusive (and by now thoroughly disillusioned) relationship with some deadbeat narcissist, who managed to knock her up a few years ago? It does to me…
this is so frickin sad. I wish she were thoroughly disillusioned--there'd be hope that she'd look for other shelter. Instead, she looks for hope in church sometimes, where the priest feeds her his thin gruel: to look inward, have faith, and to try harder.