RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?

["F Vernon Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

And Einstein could not balance a checkbook, what about these Math skills
again?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL:PROTECTED [mailto:discussion-
> EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Heivilin, Jim
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:26 AM
> To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
> Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Chad Whiting
> > Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?
> >
> > > I still find it staggering that so many people can want to elect
> > > someone so bad at math! I certainly hope that the country
> <snip>
> > I don't see in the constitution where it says, Presidential pre-req:
> > Pass a math exam
> >
> It doesn't say that the President shouldn't be a moron either!  (pardon
> the emotion, he pisses me off)  While it's theoretically possible for
> someone whose not smart (smart enough? But then where's the cut off
> too?) to do well at a job like this provided he has good advisors, I see
> his advisors (controllers) being corporate (and former corporate) types
> who are more concerned with their personal bottom line than anything
> altruistic concerning the country itself.
> 
> > I'm not sure where your information comes from either that he
> > is bad at math, not that math skills help you lead a country.
> >
> Math skills and a persons proficiency with math indicates (to me at
> least) the ability and aptitude for logical thought.  I believe this
> capability is required for leadership at a national level.  I could be
> wrong, I'm just stating my opinions.
> 
> > So Kerry can find the square root of 16 faster than Bush, good
> > for him. Although I don't see any evidence that Kerry has
> > better math skills than Bush either.
> >
> It was a subtle dig at his budget priorities and his apparent disregard
> for the idea that we should reduce the deficit or be fiscally
> responsible.  Perhaps I should have been less subtle.  Or less ironic.
> 
> > > I believe that Bush will do what is good for Bush (and his, to
> > > use a spy term, "controllers") as opposed to what's good for the
> country.
> >
> > That may be what you believe, but his issues he is supporting
> > and that he supported while in office were in the best interest
> > of the country, and of the foundation that our country was founded on.
> 
> >
> In your opinion.
> 
> In my opinion his position on assorted topics was motivated by his own
> personal desire for power, more money, for paying back people who'd done
> him favors and other things of this nature.  He's the only one who will
> ever know and it's in his own best interests not to reveal that.
> 
> That particular disagreement and the ability to disagree are part of
> "the foundation our country was founded on".  A bit redundant and
> sounding a lot like one of his speeches ("the department of redundancy
> department").
> 
> > I know a lot of people want to throw away our constitutional
> > foundation and get rid of 'In God We Trust' and say that
> > Abortion is fine and good, but that's not what America is
> > / was about.
> >
> I mentioned absolutely nothing whatsoever about religious convictions.
> I don't (necessarily) believe those are required for national
> leadership.  They often lead to solid moral and ethical convictions,
> which I do deem necessary if not essential, but what religion is
> irrelevant to me.  If Buddhism leads the President toward good decisions
> which are logical, well thought out and morally and ethically sound then
> I say 'yay for Buddhism'.  If Southern Baptism leads to the same result,
> then 'yay for South Baptism'.  Etc, regardless of which religion we're
> talking about.  So long as that conviction doesn't impinge on my (or
> anyone else's) freedom to worship a different religion.  (or a different
> lifestyle but here we enter into the gay 'marriage' debate, another very
> emotionally charged topic)
> 
> Or perhaps I should say it's not irrelevant since our country was
> founded due to religious persecution and thus initially had a leaning
> toward more religious tolerance (a trend which may be on the decline).
> 
> > > I don't believe Kerry will be much better but it's a question of a
> > > theoretical evil compared with a known evil (or perhaps I
> > > should say incompetent rather than evil).
> >
> > this is the typical mindset of kerry supporters, we don't
> > like Bush, but we don't like this other guy either, so I
> > guess we'll vote for him just because we like him better
> > than Bush.
> >
> The lesser of two evils is not an uncommon choice in modern life.
> Personally I like Mike's idea of the order of preference list (what was
> it called?).  I'd rank Kerry higher than Bush but there may very well be
> people I'd rank higher than Kerry.
> 
> > But Bush supporters actually support their president.
> >
> I'm very familiar with supporting people you think are stupid or make
> stupid decisions.  As a military officer we were trained that it was
> permissible (even required) that if you thought the commander was going
> to make a bad decision, you provide him with your input (including an
> alternate course of action, also assuming he was one of the commanders
> who solicited input rather than using a more dictatorial leadership
> approach).  There was a point at which you stopped arguing and said "Yes
> Sir", saluted and went off to do what he had decided needed to be done.
> 
> 
> However I'm no longer in the military and I spent 13 years of my life
> ensuring that you have the right to have an opinion I believe is wrong.
> And that I have the right to disagree verbally and in public with you.
> 
> > Feel free to share your opinion, this is dicussion - not math
> > class. My facts are Bush supports the war on terror, Kerry can't
> > decide where he stands. Kerry voted for the patriot act, now he
> > is whining and says it's bad. Bush is pro-life, Kerry is pro-murder.
> >
> Using this particular term ("pro-murder") shows that your position ...
> well we won't go there since all it will do is invoke more emotion and
> make the discussion less rational.
> 
> > Bush is improving schools and national security.
> >
> I remain undecided on his school policy since I haven't heard from my
> teacher friends what the local impact of it has been, but it doesn't
> make sense to me.  I can't advance a grade unless you can too?  But if
> I'm better at math I should learn more of it (which may lead into
> science, a worthwhile field).  And if you're better at English then you
> should learn more of it (which may lead into literature, another
> worthwhile field).  The ones who are good at both may lead into
> business, another admirable (in most cases) avocation.  But if I have to
> wait until you can pass the math test before I can learn more math ...
> I see this policy as propaganda.  It sounds good to people so they'll
> support you but in practice it's less than efficient.  (sorry, my
> engineering education is showing)
> 
> > Kerry wants our country to conform to the international
> > standards and turn us into France. Bush says to hell with it,
> > let's do it the American way.
> >
> Throw money at it?  Historically the American way.  Again less than
> efficient in my opinion.
> 
> Your "facts" sound to me a lot like an assortment of Republican
> propaganda.  I could return with a lot of Democratic propaganda about
> Bush "flip-flopping" and a whole slew of "facts" about his business
> endeavors (most of which are before he came to office).  This doesn't
> even touch on the whole "legalizing torture" business or the mess with
> Haliburton.
> 
> Jim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion