The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The idea's been knocking around my head for a little while, someone on TV mentioned that they felt Bush was smarter than he portrays himself to be, that it suits him to be underestimated.
Plus, there was something mentioned elsewhere that the US electorate wanted someone a little less 'slick' after being lied to by Clinton
I toyed with the idea, but for a few reasons I figured Bush probably was as dumb as he seems:
In an election race, even if you want to be seen as 'less slick', that's different to looking dumb. And surely it's not to your benefit to have people underestimate you when you're trying to convince them that you're capable of running the country?
Plus, he comes across as pretty arrogant, you'll see him use body language designed to make him appear strong, and he seems to use the cowboy theme a lot. That may not be wholly inconsistant with trying to look dumb, but it does show an agenda of trying to suggest power. In contrast stupidity is a pretty big weakness.
Did the US electorate really want a retard? Gore was pretty slick, and even putting aside the Florida controversy, he polled the majority of the vote (losing on how states were divided). A close split, but it's a pretty big gamble to try to look *so* dumb, when just a little less slick than Gore could have been sufficient to make his point.
Also, despite Clinton's lies, he seemed to come out of it fairly well. Was there really such a backlass against his characteristic smoothness?
Then of course, anything shown by Bush that might suggest he was sharper than image suggested could have stemmed from his no doubt very competent staff and advisors.
It seemed like a pretty solid case, Bush probably was as dumb as he seemed.
So why the topic? Well, after today's monumental gaff, where he managed to claim he was working tirelessly to find ways to harm the American people, I've had to reconsider.
This either suggests a whole new depth of retard, or a design.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3541706.stm[/URL]
But if it was by design, why?
I can see two plausable benefits:
-He made the slip in the signing ceremony for a big defence bill - $400 billion. The gaffe no doubt drew attention to it. Although at the risk of overshadowing the bill for those who might have payed attention..
-Kerry's been gaining momentum it seems. Perhaps it was worth the damage of looking incompetent, just to reclaim top news billing for a while
They're possible reasons for pulling a stunt like this, though I have to admit the main cause of my scepticism is my disbelief that he could screw up that badly. Surely his speech was pre-drafted, yet the way he spoke (I saw the clip on the news earlier), he seemed to steam into it without confusion, but with deliberate, precise intent. It didn't look like a slip, and it didn't look like he'd strayed from the drafted speech.
I guess right now I'm undecided.
Perhaps some of the slips used to be genuine, but now that people know he makes them, his administration decided to use them as occassional tools.
That news article suggests that people feel an affiliaton with someone who shows his imperfections.
I still struggle to see though how they can put that ahead of competence in the job, especially in the current global climate.
Plus, there was something mentioned elsewhere that the US electorate wanted someone a little less 'slick' after being lied to by Clinton
I toyed with the idea, but for a few reasons I figured Bush probably was as dumb as he seems:
In an election race, even if you want to be seen as 'less slick', that's different to looking dumb. And surely it's not to your benefit to have people underestimate you when you're trying to convince them that you're capable of running the country?
Plus, he comes across as pretty arrogant, you'll see him use body language designed to make him appear strong, and he seems to use the cowboy theme a lot. That may not be wholly inconsistant with trying to look dumb, but it does show an agenda of trying to suggest power. In contrast stupidity is a pretty big weakness.
Did the US electorate really want a retard? Gore was pretty slick, and even putting aside the Florida controversy, he polled the majority of the vote (losing on how states were divided). A close split, but it's a pretty big gamble to try to look *so* dumb, when just a little less slick than Gore could have been sufficient to make his point.
Also, despite Clinton's lies, he seemed to come out of it fairly well. Was there really such a backlass against his characteristic smoothness?
Then of course, anything shown by Bush that might suggest he was sharper than image suggested could have stemmed from his no doubt very competent staff and advisors.
It seemed like a pretty solid case, Bush probably was as dumb as he seemed.
So why the topic? Well, after today's monumental gaff, where he managed to claim he was working tirelessly to find ways to harm the American people, I've had to reconsider.
This either suggests a whole new depth of retard, or a design.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3541706.stm[/URL]
But if it was by design, why?
I can see two plausable benefits:
-He made the slip in the signing ceremony for a big defence bill - $400 billion. The gaffe no doubt drew attention to it. Although at the risk of overshadowing the bill for those who might have payed attention..
-Kerry's been gaining momentum it seems. Perhaps it was worth the damage of looking incompetent, just to reclaim top news billing for a while
They're possible reasons for pulling a stunt like this, though I have to admit the main cause of my scepticism is my disbelief that he could screw up that badly. Surely his speech was pre-drafted, yet the way he spoke (I saw the clip on the news earlier), he seemed to steam into it without confusion, but with deliberate, precise intent. It didn't look like a slip, and it didn't look like he'd strayed from the drafted speech.
I guess right now I'm undecided.
Perhaps some of the slips used to be genuine, but now that people know he makes them, his administration decided to use them as occassional tools.
That news article suggests that people feel an affiliaton with someone who shows his imperfections.
I still struggle to see though how they can put that ahead of competence in the job, especially in the current global climate.
The idea's been knocking around my head for a little while, someone on TV mentioned that they felt Bush was smarter than he portrays himself to be, that it suits him to be underestimated.
Plus, there was something mentioned elsewhere that the US electorate wanted someone a little less 'slick' after being lied to by Clinton
I toyed with the idea, but for a few reasons I figured Bush probably was as dumb as he seems:
In an election race, even if you want to be seen as 'less slick', that's different to looking dumb. And surely it's not to your benefit to have people underestimate you when you're trying to convince them that you're capable of running the country?
Plus, he comes across as pretty arrogant, you'll see him use body language designed to make him appear strong, and he seems to use the cowboy theme a lot. That may not be wholly inconsistant with trying to look dumb, but it does show an agenda of trying to suggest power. In contrast stupidity is a pretty big weakness.
Did the US electorate really want a retard? Gore was pretty slick, and even putting aside the Florida controversy, he polled the majority of the vote (losing on how states were divided). A close split, but it's a pretty big gamble to try to look *so* dumb, when just a little less slick than Gore could have been sufficient to make his point.
Also, despite Clinton's lies, he seemed to come out of it fairly well. Was there really such a backlass against his characteristic smoothness?
Then of course, anything shown by Bush that might suggest he was sharper than image suggested could have stemmed from his no doubt very competent staff and advisors.
It seemed like a pretty solid case, Bush probably was as dumb as he seemed.
So why the topic? Well, after today's monumental gaff, where he managed to claim he was working tirelessly to find ways to harm the American people, I've had to reconsider.
This either suggests a whole new depth of retard, or a design.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3541706.stm[/URL]
But if it was by design, why?
I can see two plausable benefits:
-He made the slip in the signing ceremony for a big defence bill - $400 billion. The gaffe no doubt drew attention to it. Although at the risk of overshadowing the bill for those who might have payed attention..
-Kerry's been gaining momentum it seems. Perhaps it was worth the damage of looking incompetent, just to reclaim top news billing for a while
They're possible reasons for pulling a stunt like this, though I have to admit the main cause of my scepticism is my disbelief that he could screw up that badly. Surely his speech was pre-drafted, yet the way he spoke (I saw the clip on the news earlier), he seemed to steam into it without confusion, but with deliberate, precise intent. It didn't look like a slip, and it didn't look like he'd strayed from the drafted speech.
I guess right now I'm undecided.
Perhaps some of the slips used to be genuine, but now that people know he makes them, his administration decided to use them as occassional tools.
That news article suggests that people feel an affiliaton with someone who shows his imperfections.
I still struggle to see though how they can put that ahead of competence in the job, especially in the current global climate.
Plus, there was something mentioned elsewhere that the US electorate wanted someone a little less 'slick' after being lied to by Clinton
I toyed with the idea, but for a few reasons I figured Bush probably was as dumb as he seems:
In an election race, even if you want to be seen as 'less slick', that's different to looking dumb. And surely it's not to your benefit to have people underestimate you when you're trying to convince them that you're capable of running the country?
Plus, he comes across as pretty arrogant, you'll see him use body language designed to make him appear strong, and he seems to use the cowboy theme a lot. That may not be wholly inconsistant with trying to look dumb, but it does show an agenda of trying to suggest power. In contrast stupidity is a pretty big weakness.
Did the US electorate really want a retard? Gore was pretty slick, and even putting aside the Florida controversy, he polled the majority of the vote (losing on how states were divided). A close split, but it's a pretty big gamble to try to look *so* dumb, when just a little less slick than Gore could have been sufficient to make his point.
Also, despite Clinton's lies, he seemed to come out of it fairly well. Was there really such a backlass against his characteristic smoothness?
Then of course, anything shown by Bush that might suggest he was sharper than image suggested could have stemmed from his no doubt very competent staff and advisors.
It seemed like a pretty solid case, Bush probably was as dumb as he seemed.
So why the topic? Well, after today's monumental gaff, where he managed to claim he was working tirelessly to find ways to harm the American people, I've had to reconsider.
This either suggests a whole new depth of retard, or a design.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3541706.stm[/URL]
But if it was by design, why?
I can see two plausable benefits:
-He made the slip in the signing ceremony for a big defence bill - $400 billion. The gaffe no doubt drew attention to it. Although at the risk of overshadowing the bill for those who might have payed attention..
-Kerry's been gaining momentum it seems. Perhaps it was worth the damage of looking incompetent, just to reclaim top news billing for a while
They're possible reasons for pulling a stunt like this, though I have to admit the main cause of my scepticism is my disbelief that he could screw up that badly. Surely his speech was pre-drafted, yet the way he spoke (I saw the clip on the news earlier), he seemed to steam into it without confusion, but with deliberate, precise intent. It didn't look like a slip, and it didn't look like he'd strayed from the drafted speech.
I guess right now I'm undecided.
Perhaps some of the slips used to be genuine, but now that people know he makes them, his administration decided to use them as occassional tools.
That news article suggests that people feel an affiliaton with someone who shows his imperfections.
I still struggle to see though how they can put that ahead of competence in the job, especially in the current global climate.
I see a video diary of his last election campaign.
He's still thick but I can see what angle you're coming from.
He's still thick but I can see what angle you're coming from.
An interesting theory, one which ultimately relies on a simple conundrum: will the American people sympathise with this retard enough to make him President Retard again?
Personally, I think there's an element of half-truth in it, I don't believe for a second he's any smarter than he is, and failing to know things like the name of the Indian Prime Minister go way beyond endearing into the realms of 'dangerously incompetent'.
But I think you may be onto something with the way the media picks up on these things. If it's a choice between reporting on a stirring Kerry speech (in which a seemingly well-educated man makes no verbal mishaps) or a freak-show press conference with the world's biggest moron (who always messes things up - fancy!) then you know who's going to be getting the headlines.
And then you have the whole 'choking on a pretzel' thing. The only thing that would have achieved is making him dead through idiocy. Jesus, there were rednecks in the outback saying "Hell, even I know how to chew and swallow, mebbe I could be Presydent!"
It scares me that this man has his finger on the nuclear button, and that's enough for me to want him out of office.
Edit: Bush in his element?
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39920000/jpg/_39920790_bushafp300.jpg[/URL]
Personally, I think there's an element of half-truth in it, I don't believe for a second he's any smarter than he is, and failing to know things like the name of the Indian Prime Minister go way beyond endearing into the realms of 'dangerously incompetent'.
But I think you may be onto something with the way the media picks up on these things. If it's a choice between reporting on a stirring Kerry speech (in which a seemingly well-educated man makes no verbal mishaps) or a freak-show press conference with the world's biggest moron (who always messes things up - fancy!) then you know who's going to be getting the headlines.
And then you have the whole 'choking on a pretzel' thing. The only thing that would have achieved is making him dead through idiocy. Jesus, there were rednecks in the outback saying "Hell, even I know how to chew and swallow, mebbe I could be Presydent!"
It scares me that this man has his finger on the nuclear button, and that's enough for me to want him out of office.
Edit: Bush in his element?
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39920000/jpg/_39920790_bushafp300.jpg[/URL]
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> And then you have the whole 'choking on a pretzel' thing. The only
> thing that would have achieved is making him dead through idiocy.
Heh, true enough. But then again, sometimes you just swallow your food 'wrong', it catches us all out occassionally, to some extent...
That'd be a great job though - Personal Security Department: Presidential Food Chewer. You could spit in everything he ate, and get paid for it :^)
> And then you have the whole 'choking on a pretzel' thing. The only
> thing that would have achieved is making him dead through idiocy.
Heh, true enough. But then again, sometimes you just swallow your food 'wrong', it catches us all out occassionally, to some extent...
That'd be a great job though - Personal Security Department: Presidential Food Chewer. You could spit in everything he ate, and get paid for it :^)
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> And then you have the whole 'choking on a pretzel' thing. The only
> thing that would have achieved is making him dead through idiocy.
The injuries he suffered were "a cut lip and a bruised head". I'd be interested to see who was visiting the White House that day, cos they could quite easily be the injuries caused by a good, solid punch to the face. Maybe his Daddy was annoyed at him for making a pigs ear of things thus far. Or maybe (if you wanna be all conspiracy theory-minded about it) he was getting cold feet about the coming storm re: 9/11, and he took a bitchslapping because of it.
Or maybe he is indeed a moron who can't chew his own food.
> Mr Snuggly wrote:
> And then you have the whole 'choking on a pretzel' thing. The only
> thing that would have achieved is making him dead through idiocy.
The injuries he suffered were "a cut lip and a bruised head". I'd be interested to see who was visiting the White House that day, cos they could quite easily be the injuries caused by a good, solid punch to the face. Maybe his Daddy was annoyed at him for making a pigs ear of things thus far. Or maybe (if you wanna be all conspiracy theory-minded about it) he was getting cold feet about the coming storm re: 9/11, and he took a bitchslapping because of it.
Or maybe he is indeed a moron who can't chew his own food.
Light wrote:
> The injuries he suffered were "a cut lip and a bruised
> head". I'd be interested to see who was visiting the White House
> that day, cos they could quite easily be the injuries caused by a
> good, solid punch to the face. Maybe his Daddy was annoyed at him for
> making a pigs ear of things thus far. Or maybe (if you wanna be all
> conspiracy theory-minded about it) he was getting cold feet about the
> coming storm re: 9/11, and he took a bitchslapping because of it.
Heh, interesting theories. How do you distract attention from the tell-tale marks of domestic abuse? Come up with an explanation that keeps people too busy laughing at you to question further :^D
> The injuries he suffered were "a cut lip and a bruised
> head". I'd be interested to see who was visiting the White House
> that day, cos they could quite easily be the injuries caused by a
> good, solid punch to the face. Maybe his Daddy was annoyed at him for
> making a pigs ear of things thus far. Or maybe (if you wanna be all
> conspiracy theory-minded about it) he was getting cold feet about the
> coming storm re: 9/11, and he took a bitchslapping because of it.
Heh, interesting theories. How do you distract attention from the tell-tale marks of domestic abuse? Come up with an explanation that keeps people too busy laughing at you to question further :^D
Think you missed the point that the majority in the US didn't want him as president anyway (thanks Jeb).
Light wrote:
> Maybe his Daddy was annoyed at him for
> making a pigs ear of things thus far.
Hasnt it been his Daddy thats been running everything so far?
> Maybe his Daddy was annoyed at him for
> making a pigs ear of things thus far.
Hasnt it been his Daddy thats been running everything so far?