In our discussions before, during, and after the US elections, many people made a number of comments regarding President Bush, Senator Kerry and their relative intelligence. It was common to see comments in the mainstream media news and opinion venues, as well as here in our WoL chats. The threads are long since gone, but I remember some of the comments:
"Bush is a dumbass"
"He got Ds at Yale...which is a gentleman's F"
"Kerry is so much smarter than Bush"
(For the anti-Bush crowd: If you don't recognize the above as your own, please mentally fill in your own comments here as there were plenty more)

I hope I am wrong, but I am guessing we won't see a lot of coverage on this news:

Kerry finally opened his Navy records by signing the release form last month. Part of his record is his transcript from Yale. Guess what!!!! Kerry's overall grade at Yale was a 76 (mid C). He got 4 Ds during his freshman year in geology, political science, and 2 history courses. This information in itself is hilarious considering the extremely high intellectual esteem that many Democrats had for him. It gets better! For comparison purposes: President Bush got an overall 77 and only had 1 D in freshman astronomy during his entire 4 years. At least the majority of voters were able to spot the phoney intellectual and vote for the more intelligent candidate.

I won't hold my breath waiting to see the apologies, but this is too funny!!!
Cheers,
H.

Last Edited : Tuesday, 7 June 2005 - 21:44

Kerry just talk more purdy than Bush, thats all.

Well, that ol' Bushie sur' talk purdy southrn, and al' does Texans culdn't understan' dat Kerrys Nerdy talk, so dey vote fo' dat Bushie?

Theyre both crap presidents! BRING BACK NIXON!!! Atleast theres no C.I.A to stop me saying this in Aust! *looks over shoulder*

I want to know what his original discharge from the navy was. I am not up todate on it but the one he released before had been one signed during Carters presidency. This led to speculation that he had a dishonorable discharge and was changed to honorable later/

Finguld
Kerry started to talk to the press on how bad the war was & how The Good Old USA should Not be there .
That is why he was discharged

Last Edited : Wednesday, 8 June 2005 - 03:42

Well he did meet with N.Vietnam officials while he was still a officer in the navy reserves. That is the reason that there is a specuation that he was dishonorably discharged.

Last Edited : Wednesday, 8 June 2005 - 10:00

Hwatta: "At least the majority of voters were able to spot the phoney intellectual and vote for the more intelligent candidate."

True 77 > 76, but that doesn't make either of them intelligent. And I don't care that those are C averages at Yale, I've always maintained that (particularly in those times) anyone with the right connections and/or money can get into an ivy league school.

But then again, should we expect intelligent people to WANT to delve into the murky world of politics? As always I'll throw Twain's thoughts down as they still fit today:

"Intelligence is viewed so highly in our society that it is relieved of all of the burden of leadership"

lol - I saw this story too and thought it was interesting.

Regean was claimed to be an idiot too. His evil empire speech was denouced by the press and the state department etc.. as was his 'tear down this wall speech'. I've read Ronald Reagan a book of letters or something and I can say he is a very intellgent and well thought out person.

That said, grades or standardized tests or IQ etc.. I don't think really tell much at all.

Speaking of which, here is one of my favorite quotes of all time:

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
-William F. Buckley

LOL! Funny cuz it's true.

Last Edited : Saturday, 11 June 2005 - 07:48

no i dont remember any of those really being the comments...i always remembered the comments being along the lines of...

well whos STUPIDER kerry or bush?

i think its Bush...hes an idiot...he got Ds at his college...and so on or at least thats what i remember...it always seemed to me as "lets pick the lesser of two idiots"

People are laughing at Kerry because he got a D in French. The French candidate got a D. He grew up living in France for a few months of every year and still got a D.

Ultima,
You will have to refresh my memory on any claims that Kerry was "STUPIDER" during the campaign. I can't recall anybody making those arguments because Bush released his records and we knew he got a "D" at Yale...most ignored the fact that he also went on to get an MBA at Harvard as well...but we had no idea about Kerry's actual grades and he was always portrayed by the media as the more intellectual candidate. Now we know why he didn't bother to release them during the campaign. He had MORE Ds than Bush did. 5 to 1!!! And his overall GPA was lower.

Perhaps this will refresh your memory about the basic argument a bit (a link to "This Land" with Bush and Kerry):

www.jibjab.com/162.html

We did certainly discuss voting for the lesser of two evils, but it was related mostly to our beliefs about who lied the most. Dems believed President Bush purposefully lied to start the Iraq War, and Republicans believed Kerry lied about just about everything he managed to say (from his religious beliefs, to his views on taxes, to his reasons for his votes on the war).
Cheers,
H.

"Ultima,
You will have to refresh my memory on any claims that Kerry was "STUPIDER" during the campaign. I can't recall anybody making those arguments because Bush released his records and we knew he got a "D" at Yale...most ignored the fact that he also went on to get an MBA at Harvard as well...but we had no idea about Kerry's actual grades and he was always portrayed by the media as the more intellectual candidate. Now we know why he didn't bother to release them during the campaign. He had MORE Ds than Bush did. 5 to 1!!! And his overall GPA was lower."(Hwatta)

nope...maybe it was something related to my own town or something...but last i remember before the whole election began...sides the fact that they both lied everyone was talking about who was the stupidest...it was something along the lines of bush's constant slip-ups with the vocab which clearly show hes a complete moron...and then the side about kerry began when he made a really stupid metaphor involving the Boston Red Sox and politics...he makes a lot of those and each time he does well you can kind of tell he is not too bright...or that he thinks too hard.yes it was during the campaign...it was not exactly that Kerry was the more stupid one like you seem to think...just that people were picking based on who was the least stupid of the two...

Why is it anti-bush writers cant go after policy. They just call him names?

I see anti-bush writers go after his policy ALL THE TIME. They just take breaks in between to make fun of him personally, too.

Really, ok go after his policy with out using personal attacks. No words like, stupid, liar, idiot, uneducated etc... Lets just talk pure policy, cause and effect and results.

I'll start with one.

His agressive policy toward terrorism. During previous administrations, terrorist attacks were countered by.. well they weren't. Show me where they were. The current administration's aggressive policy toward terrorism has prevented any major terrorist attack on American soil or abroad outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus we are much safer than we were 5 years ago.

Thank you Mr. President.

Is that what you call logic BA? With the same logic all countries that never were attacked (yet) also have followed a smart policy.
Merci, Monsieur le president.

Last Edited : Monday, 13 June 2005 - 22:02

All countries are not the target of Al-Quida. Only the ones that stand up to them.

But yet you divert the argument.

"The current administration's aggressive policy toward terrorism has prevented any major terrorist attack on American soil or abroad outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus we are much safer than we were 5 years ago."

Argue against Bush on HIS policy, not argue against Bush on the policy of others.

My meaning with that was to show its ridiculous to say we are safer now . We dont know that until they strike again do we?

Last Edited : Monday, 13 June 2005 - 22:41

LOD,
Your house is broken into every night for 2 weeks. You hire a security guard and put in a lighting system, and the burglaries stop for the next 2 years. You cannot claim that you will never be the victim of crime again. You can certainly claim that your policy for dealing with the situation is working.

The claim being made is logical. Your claim that the fact that "other houses in other neighborhoods have also not been robbed in the 2 year period" (other countries were also not attacked) had nothing to do with the situation...unless you have the option to move your house to a different location. Or we can rename the United States to Sweden???
Cheers,
H.