Reply With Quote
Reminds me of the grade school bullies who had such low self esteem, they had to pick on others....
Actually, the number is credible within statistical error for the small sample size. There have been two credible studies I have heard of breaking down various aspects of news. One of them I read when it came out a few years back, the second on, I only heard of. Both had more than 80% in the field left of center. Don't ask me for the link, it's been a long time. I'm not looking for it. Find any study related to the issue if you can. To my knowledge, the two are all that have ever been done.
Reminds me of the grade school bullies who had such low self esteem, they had to pick on others....
You two amuse me.
And I'm not picking on anyone, no one has ever accused Bush of being exceptionally bright, and even thinking logically, it isn't exactly difficult to prove my point.
Jimmy Carter= Nuclear Engineer
Ronald Regan= Actor (and was also a lot smarter than Bush)
HW Bush= Director of CIA
Clinton = Rhodes scolar, phd economics
you think Bush jr. is more intelligent than any of these gentlemen?
and i'm not lying, people with PhDs and professionals (doctor's, lawyers, et.) are far more likely to be progressive.
67% of all statistics are made up
Look who's amusing.
Jimmy Carter used his education by quitting the Navy to take over the family Peanut farm.
Ronald Reagan was, indeed, a brilliant man and -- as you say -- maybe more intelligent than George Bush.
Clinton has been in public employ damn near his entire adult life. Way to use that education.
George H. W. Bush is a decorated war veteran who dedicated much of his life to public service and the diplomatic corps before seeking elected office.
Our Current President has been tremendously successful in business and was probably the wealthiest of the five, you mentioned, to ever ascend to the presidency.
Some people are intelligent. Some are just plain smart.
You say that is if it's something of which to be proud or that is admirable.
you're on crack, bush has never had a successful business in his life (excluding the money he made on the Texas rangers by screwing the people of Arlington out of millions of dollars for a new ballpark.)
and generally speaking, i would think having a PhD or JD or MD would be something to be proud of, not sure how you would discount that save to say it's a product of the "liberal education conspiracy" or whatever you nutters say these days.
hmmmm...might be a reason the most educated people in america (college professors) are such big liberals (quick it's logic, duck before yoni explodes)
and you act like bill Clinton's devotion to public service is a bad thing, but i guess that makes sense seeing as you have shown a pronounced appreciation for politicians that use public service only as a means for furthering their interests and the interests of their wealthiest supporters
I think he walked away from his investments a much wealthier man. I'm not sure how you define success but, in my book, business success is generally defined by your ability to ac ulate wealth.
It was your connection to liberalism that I was mocking. I think it has more to do with the majority of PhD's being located in academia, JD's vested in liberal ideals, and MD's dealing with human misery than it does with them holding the degrees in the first place.
Yeah, idealism combined with a healthy dose of no real-world experience and immature charges they can indoctrinate.
devotion?
And, speaking of Reagan, which we were...sort of:
The Washington Times reports on a new Rasmussen survey that reinforces the idea that Republicans shouldn't give up on 2008. Rasmussen tested five descriptions of a Presidential candidate; the one that came out on top, with a 44% positive rating, was "like Reagan."
Most Republicans have been pretty confident that last year's election wasn't a repudiation of conservatism. This is borne out by the fact that "conservative" outpolls "liberal" by 32% to 20%. In some polls over the years, of course, the disparity has been even wider. But "progressive" scored 35%, which can only mean that many Americans haven't figured out yet that "progressive" means "even more liberal than they used to be." No doubt some still associate it with Teddy Roosevelt.
"Moderate" polled only 29%, which suggests that most Americans want a Presidential candidate to stand for something, as long as it isn't liberalism. But what people really want, apparently, is another Reagan. And they're much more likely to see a Republican in that role than a Democrat.
Maybe, but statistics are derrived from obtaianable facts. Statistics do not make something factual. 33% is a reasonable amount of area to be correct still.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
