May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« I Support the Troops More Than You Do | Main | Holy Sheikh »


Vladlena Nyzhnik

This is a great topic, I’ve learned so much from it, even from the comments too.


Enough of the GW Bush bashing. And global warming is really alot of hot air! What will people do when GW is gone? What will you have to talk about then?


hear nah...some of these comments have me weak...these ppl taking what u say Scott as a personal!!!

anyways...mistakes maketh man but some just dont learn and that qualifies you as an idiot!


hear nah...some of these comments have me weak...these ppl taking what u say Scott as a personal!!!

anyways...mistakes maketh man but some just dont learn and that qualifies you as an idiot!


"President Bush is stupid by definition, since he ignores experts in many fields."

Haha, really? Where'd you get that one? Ah, George Bush doesn't listen to whiny lefty "experts", therefore he ignores all experts, huh? You are being misinformed.


No E, it wasn't a matter of "iffy" intelligence. bush was clear that he only wanted to hear reports that supported his position, and was going to ignore any reports that didn't support it.

This isn't a case of bush making a good decision based on bad data, so everything turned to shit. It is a case of bush purposely ignoring and refusing to listen to the truth, no matter how often it was told to him by anyone, until he finally heard some vague rumor that supported what he wanted to hear -- then he went for it!

(And FYI, there's no "t" in my name, nor is it capitalized.)


For anyone too lazy, here's some info on the, um, highly credible institute that produced the infamous petition signed by thousands of "scientists".

Exec summary: total wackos.


Oh ok ... i get it... So rt now my manager is really stupid and i do point out one or two of his stupidities at times... But i get it... may be i shouldn't point out his stupidities... cuz he (looking at the bigger picture) is trying to be a real leader in another zillion years... oh yeah! why dint i think of this before...

Bruce Harrison

You are arrogant beyond belief. You present your opinions as fact time and time again, and then excoriate anyone who disagrees with you. You make up your own definitions for words that are already defined, and then get upset when people point out what you are doing.

Case in point: "President Bush is stupid by definition, since he ignores experts in many fields." With that incredible statement, your inanity has reached new heights.

Let me educate you, Scott. The word "stupid" is defined as, "Any opinion held by Scott Adams." Now that I have defined the word, I can now say with 100% accuracy that anything you say is stupid by definition. I can also follow that statement with something like, "If you don't agree, you're wrong by definition, so deal with it." Hey, this is fun! I can see why it appeals to you so much.

You need to try to figure out new ways to convince people of your positions, Scott. Trying to get people to accept new definitions for existing words may be a clever debating society trick, but it doesn't work when your audience has an IQ higher than a grape.

You also need to stop presenting statements with heavy implications that really mean nothing. Case in point: " There is a nonzero chance that global warming turns out to be no big deal. . ."

What the Hell does that mean? Are you saying that anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact? Are you saying that President Bush's refusal to push the Kyoto treaty (and President Clinton's Senate, who in an advisory vote, voted against recommending the signing of the treaty by something like 97-0) is evidence that President Bush is stupid?

Rather than demonstrate President Bush's stupidity, your statements prove only your ignorance and bias. There is no doubt that you are intelligent; there is also no doubt that you have blinders on due to your unshakeable belief that you are infallible.

The clearest indicator of that is your unswerving proselytization in support of the pagan religion of anthropogenic global warming. Scientists are abandoning that theory in droves, but you not only cling to it, you then try to use your erroneous belief as evidence that the President is stupid for not agreeing with you.

You don't accept that, Scott? Then do some real research instead of basing your position on "An Inconvenient Truth." How about this: "The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." (From the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "Petition Project," available on the Internet at ). Boy, talk about scientific consensus!!!

Side note: as Dr. Michael Crichton said, "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."

Gee, Scott. Results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. What a concept for you to consider. As if.

Or, how about this: "Dr. Richard Lindzen stated that. . . a wide variety of scientific views [are] presented in the NAS [National Academy of Science] report [on anthropogenic global warming] and "that the full report did [express a wide variety of views], making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."

Or try viewing "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Here's a link to it: You might even learn something -- oh, wait, you would have to have an open mind to do that. Never mind.

I don't mind that you believe your opinions are fact; I do object, though, to you presenting your opinions as fact, and then inferring that those who disagree with you are stupid. For your own credibility, I'd suggest you try being more precise and less biased. Try basing your opinions a little less on your ego and a little more on solid research.

[And you think President Bush bases his decisions on the facts you just pointed to? -- Scott]



I appreciate the comment, but I think you're making my point for me.

Richard Clarke's claim is that he was pointing to Al Quida as a credible threat before 9/11 and couldn't get people to listen.

A whole lot of smart and powerful people heard what he had to say and did not think it was worthy of action. Not one of them saw 9/11 coming...

So, you have iffy intelligence, not acted on... bad things happen.

Pre-Iraq, you have iffy intelligence... and people act on it...

This seems like a completely rational decision to me, even if it later proves to be wrong turn, as Scott put it.

My point is that it is quite hard to tell good intelligence from bad intelligence before things actually happen... or when you can only see part of the very complex picture.

It seems to me that you have three possibilities:

1) Bush is a puppet - which you suggested.

In that case, take issue with the evil puppetmaster, whoever that is and be fair to the poor Presidential rube - it truly is NOT his fault in that case.

2) Bush is evil - which you also suggested.

He knows what is going on, knew about 9/11, knew how Iraq would turn out... and decided to do it anyway, for nefarious purposes. If that one is true, flame away... don't worry that you're in agreement with crazy South American dictators :)

3) Bush is a decent guy and got handed a shit sandwich to eat.

And he gets to eat it for several years, on national TV, in front of God and everybody... but he, and a whole lot of other smart people are doing the best that they can with a very complex situation.

Which one of those is true? Hell if I know. They would probably look eerily similar.

The question is, what Should Bush have done about Iraq? Anything? Nothing?

What should he do now that won't result in 100,000 plus innocent people dead?

It is easy to snipe from the position of hindsight.

I'm just trying to think about things without being a sheep and saying, "yeah! bush is stupid! fucking moron!" just because that is popular at the moment.

I don't always get there.


That theory explains how here in Australia we inherited a Prime Minister who is possibly an animated cartoon character himself. He is embarrassing, but kinda likeable. A bit like a dog that licks itself compulsively, but has been with the family too long to get rid of. ..... On second thoughts, maybe its time for him to go.


Sorry E (and others who aren't tough on bush), but you should read "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clark and find out the real story. bush actively ignored good intelligence so he could focus on bad intelligence that supported his pre-conceived decision (or that of his handlers).

History will be in a better place to show just how corrupt, ignorant, out of touch and manipulated bush was.

No leadership from him, any more than Kermit the Frog actually leads anything. Always look for the handler when it comes to bush.



This would be an unpopular post, if anyone came back to read it.

Your point about Reagan is well taken, I think he was shrewd, but how much was him and how much was a situation that would have happened anyway? Hard to tell.

That cuts both ways though. If the larger point is that the President doesn't have as much influence on unbelievably complicated world events as we tend to think he does... ok - that would apply to our current President as well.

He might have made any number of different decisions and it would have gone south anyway. That seems very likely to me. It may be that he just picked the wrong decade to be President.

I don't think history will judge Bush as harshly as he is being judged now. I'm not a fan of Bush, but I honestly think he is getting a lot of unfair treatment by folks at large.

Here's why I think that...

I would guess that in the intelligence community, there is a boatload of information, some of it is false, some partly true, some very true. Some of it is more credible, some of it is less credible. Part of the job of these folks is to sift through a lot of BS to get to the delicious relevant intell that may be useful.

Even without direct evidence, there probably is a line or a decision point where the information you have demands a response... I don't know where that is.

But I suspect, after 9/11 it moved solidly towards a stance of "we better do something earlier than we did before."

Think about the activity right before we first went to Iraq. Evidence and supposed evidence of WMD in Iraq. Saddam not complying with UN inspections. Then, he was actively ignoring and denouncing those sanctions / requirements. Even if he never had any WMD stuff, he was sure acting like he did.

Post 9/11, how do you NOT respond to that in force?

Iraq is a complete goat rope. I don't think anyone, even Bush, would deny that. At this point, it is a shit sandwich either way.

But at the time, a lot of smart people were saying we should go, and Congress voted to go. There were reasons for that, even if they were incomplete or incorrect.

I can see this continuing to be a drain, with an unconsciousable cost in American lives and becoming Vietnamish in terms of the judgment of history.

I can also see Iraq eventually cooling off and being a solid ally for us and for stability in the center of the middle east.

I'm afraid of what happens if we stay, I'm also afraid of what happens if we pack up and leave. I don't see any clear way of understanding which one is worse.

If that statement is fair at ALL, we should cut Bush, the administration and the military some freaking slack.

It isn't the case that this is an easy decision or a clear win, being mishandled by a goober.

This is a truly complex situation, with unclear consequences and real costs either way...

Beating on how stupid Bush is, might be fun and easy to do, but it seems to me that 1) it isn't fair and 2) it isn't helping come up with any kind of help or solution.

I hate the situation in Iraq and that it is putting our kids in harm's way. I hope we can get out of there soon, without completely abandoning Iraq to a horrible situation.

admiral krunch

Real leadership is more complex than left and right. In many events your theory may occasionally work for american presidents or "Great" american military leaders, but Most non-americans don't consider them to be real leaders take the duke of wellington, Napoleon, Henry V, Frederick The Great, Rommel, Richard the Lionheart, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, the list goes on. Who have the Americans got? Eisenhower? Grant?, The closest thing to a real american military genius were the Southern generals in the civil war.

Rex May

Bush stupid? Maybe, but you're assuming he has the same motivations that the rest of us do. If he does, he's incredibly stupid. But if his motivation is to promote the neocon agenda — fight the whole world, and invite the whole world to immigrate and turn the US into a banana republic with his class on top of the lumpenproletariat, he's done a damn fine job. Maybe a smart job.

Tillman Fan

I actually think that this applies more often than not to real-life situations other than deciding whether one is a good leader. For example, I think that whether one makes a lot of money or not depends way too much on luck -- what makes one actor or singer a "star" and therefore very wealthy, while another works in obscurity at local weddings? Similarly, in the pharmaceutical business the difference in whether one becomes rich often is whether the drug you're studying actually works and is safe -- but the drug's efficacy and safety are completely beyond one's control, no matter how smart and hard-working you are.

In general, hard work and intelligence can allow you to succeed when luck presents you with an opportunity, and lack of hard work and intelligence can cause you to waste a good opportunity that life has handed you -- but ultimately, it's luck that, in my opinion, is the deciding factor.


Wow! My conservative Dad keeps saying that he thinks GW will be considered one of the greatest presidents in history within 50 years. Each time I nearly choke myself to do death in the name of maintaining family relations... but maybe he's right?
One stupid visionary calling the success of another stupid visionary. YEEHAW!


Bring on the Global warming!!! I look forward to having a beach front property here in Ohio!!! The rest of you can just learn to swim and not be stupid enough to build property that close to the ocean. This wouldn't be the first time in history that the ocean level has risen.


Sorry Wise-acres, but it doesn't take 'argument' to see that G.W. is stupid, it only takes watching him on television fumbling and bumbling. Not finely edited portions to catch some rare event, but at most every opportunity -- so often that you have to wonder how anyone who wasn't also stupid could vote for him.

Listo Entertainment



It's interesting to see people making arguments in the terms of the propaganda/jingoism fed to them, like the rhetorical question: "just how do you fight terrorism?"

This is what is called 'begging the question' and is a logical fallacy (specifically an informal fallacy of questionable cause - see The question begged is "how do we best deal with terrorism?" Instead of asking this question, the propagandists provide a question which assumes that we must _fight_ terrorism. Just like the other fuzzy wars: on drugs, poverty, aids and so on, this is a war on the symptom without addressing the root cause. Unlike the other "wars on", the War on Terror has the potential benefit of producing what it claims to be supressing.

So long as the fight against terrorism involves reducing freedoms and killing almost indiscriminately those within certain ethnic, religious, political and national groupings, then freedom fighters and vigilantes will be created. To quote the trite homily, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Even if you manage to kill one terrorist leader with a bomb attack, if you manage to kill twenty other people in the process then you inflame the situation. When you strafe a wedding party, you inflame the situation. When you are seen to be occupying another nation, you inflame the situation. When your rabid right make statements that another world religion is one which actively supports terrorism, you inflame the situation. When you cling to the idea that your "enemies" must surrender and accede to your demands unconditionally, or die, you inflame the situation. When you swagger around claiming how great you are because you are so much richer than everyone else, you inflame the situation.

Sadly the root problem is nothing that can be solved within a short timeframe, or even explained in a soundbites, and any workable solution will require some of that tricky thinking business, not to mention some soul searching and humility. The political climate in the US does not lend itself to producing the leadership which is capable of addressing the problem.

You either need to be the New Rome, and do what the Romans would have done (totally devastate your enemies, ruthlessly, including the intentional killing of their women and children plus any innocent bystanders, salting of the earth, poisoning of their wells, screwing of their goats - get the picture?) or get the fuck out of Dodge. Half-heartedness will only get more people killed, and make the problem worse.



Kevin Kunreuther

"Remind me in 50 years (since you plan to live forever) when someone calls Bush a brilliant leader that I correct them by telling them that he really was just plain stupid. and reckless. but mainly stupid.

Posted by: Angel | May 21, 2007 at 01:53 AM"

How am I supposed to do that, when by that time, you'll be fertilizing my cornfield? BTW, not planning on living forever, resigned to it. It's the mindless tedium, that gets you, but it's damn sight better than being constantly re-incarnated, some of my friends will tell you("Oh, didn't I know you from one of your previous lives?" "Yes, I was your goldfish, asshole. Forgot to feed me, then flush me down the crapper, that's gratitude ... if you weren't immortal!" "OH, go stick your head in a toilet, why don't you?" "Don't think I haven't tried!!").

Anne Yenny

Well, there were experts in the 70's that believed there was a coming freeze, and there were many, many experts who believed there was a population explosion that would cause world-wide famine. If I remember correctly, everyone reading this should have starved to death by now.

Lucky for us, everyone ignored the yahoos who where predicting a freeze. Not so lucky for much of the world, the experts were believed regarding the population.

I can't get an accurate five-day weather forecast (it's raining in Southern California as I write - who knew?) and I'm supposed to believe a forecast for the next 20 + years?

In the matter of global warming President Bush is neither an expert, leader, visionary nor follower. He simply has common sense. Thank God.

Sir Mike Tallon

A president doesn't need to be a leader, I don't need anyone to lead me. I know what I want in life and I've learned how to use the system to get it. If anyone tried to lead me it would just waste both our time and be a step backward. To need a leader is to need to be a follower.
No, what we need is somebody who is confident and incredibly broadminded. They need to be open to any suggestions and know how to use logic to trim out the fat, and even create hybrids of policies to come up with the absolute best solution thought of at that time. When you put as many creative minds as possible together the best ideas can be shared, and the greatest results will be produced.


I am going to bring up an idea stated by Dennis Miller. Both Abraham Lincoln and Truman were extremely unpopular in their own time. Now they are famous and have a cult of personality following them. He also stated that hate has a funny way of turning into love, and imagines that Bush will have the something happen to him when he is gone. I have often heard my grandmother state that JFK wasn’t so well liked when he was alive, in fact I have heard he wasn’t so popular due to the whole "Cuban Missile Crisis".
My opinion is that people in general are “tools”, they tend to be easily influenced and believe anything they are told. I have heard the same argument from several people on how G.W. is stupid. They can’t even explain the argument or even give a general background of it. They are simply repeating the same argument without understanding what it meant.

The comments to this entry are closed.