This discussion is closed.
s.e.r.e.n.e
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#361
Report 11 years ago
#361
Apparently Bush's SAT scores are as follows:

566 verbal, 640 math. Total 1206. :

SAT Math is so easy that any reasonable educated person can get 770+. Most of my friends got 790 or 800 in the first attempt.

Little wonder why America is always headed in the wrong direction under Bush. If he can't even do simple arithmetic right how can he get America right?
0
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#362
Report 11 years ago
#362
(Original post by s.e.r.e.n.e)
Obama is really young so his CV is thin. Bush is known for being not too intellectually gifted. (his IQ is apparently 126, which is about 15 - 25 pts lower than the average student from my university) He scored a C in Yale history and his SAT scores (source unknown, prob. not reliable) were really far from brilliant. (I bet he didn't get anything close to 800-800-800 in either SAT or SAT II). He has good business networks hence he got in Harvard MBA.
Yes, GW is an idiot. Here is a link to his college transcript.

http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp

Conservative Americans thought he would be a great president despite being kind of dim because he had this everyday quality to him. He was a cowboy and went to church and played golf, etc... all the characteristics that the right values. Now the left thinks that Obama will be a great president because he is smart and articulate and did well in college. The right and left value different qualities, but in my opinion having these qualities does not excuse a lack of experience when it comes to being the leader of the United States of America.
0
s.e.r.e.n.e
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#363
Report 11 years ago
#363
(Original post by Kondar)
See, this is what most Brits just dont get. Obama never stood up to Bush on some of the issues that you all seem to be most concerned with- the war in Iraq, the environment, torture at Gitmo, ect.. It was always McCain. For those of us that hate Bush, McCain has been the one guy we could rely on.. not Obama or Hillary.

Russia has slipped into an authoritarian state and China has been one for the last 70 years or so. If the G8 is comprised of actual democracies, then McCain has a very good point.

I am much more worried about Obama's FP. He was the one who said he would invade Pakistan to go after Bin Laden. As someone who studied the middle east in Uni, I cannot begin to tell you how bad of an idea that would be. Pakistan is already instable enough, with Sharif being overthrown, Musharraf recently having to suspend the constitution because the country was in such disarray, and Bhutto being assassinated... To invade the highly conservative mountainous region of Pakistan (where anti-US/anti-west sentiment runs very high) would have devastating internal repercussions and who knows how this would affect an already unstable nuclear nation. That is the biggest gaffe of the campaign so far, IMO.
1. I know the context of the 100 years remark. But that's the idea at the back of his mind, to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and he let it slipped out in Straight Talk manner. I thank him for his honesty in admitting the he had wanted US to stay in Iraq for 100 years. To somehow feel that Iraq is going to be like Germany South Korea or Japan is unwise. For one, you don't have the sheer emphasis on science education in many middle-eastern countries.

As for who can rely on, you have a point. But Obama says no to drilling, no to Gitmo and has opposed the Iraq war from the start. But actual position doesn't matter really. It is all about perception. Obama is perceived to be very anti-Bush, much more than McCain; that's what is needed to kill anti-Americanism created by Bush.

As for G8, McCain is WRONG. G8 will soon become a organisation that can achieved nothing. Russia should definitely be in the G8, and so is China because it is on track to over take the US in 25-50 years time. (Incidentally, the fact that a financial power like China's not in G8 was raised in the House of Commons during one of the PMQs). At least one of the rich, oil producing middle-eastern state should be in, or instead get a representative to represent them. Either expand the G8, or kick out two of either France, Italy or Canada. The world has change. France, Italy and Canada are no longer powers compared to China.
0
stratomaster136
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#364
Report 11 years ago
#364
(Original post by Bismarck)
No, just someone who wants hire 3 million more government workers, increase corporate taxes, force employers to have retirement accounts for their workers, force companies to give up "excess profits", increase spending by at least $500 billion a year, and pretty much destroy the dollar and the US economy in general.
Surely a new economic direction is needed - look what an excessively free US housing market has done to the world economy...
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#365
Report 11 years ago
#365
Hopefully his arrogance in trying to emulate JFK abroad will put off American voters come November.
0
UGeNe
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#366
Report 11 years ago
#366
Does affirmative action apply to the Presidency? Rice and Powell are black but they are are not at the very top job.
0
s.e.r.e.n.e
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#367
Report 11 years ago
#367
(Original post by UGeNe)
Does affirmative action apply to the Presidency? Rice and Powell are black but they are are not at the very top job.
Sory but how does Rice, Powell and Obama got to do with affirmative action?

They got there by their own abilities. Rice is a neo-con Stanford professor. Powell was a military general and disagreed with Rumsfeld on how the Iraq War should be fought (he adovcated more troops and he was right). Obama is an extremely talented speaker.
0
UGeNe
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#368
Report 11 years ago
#368
(Original post by s.e.r.e.n.e)
Sory but how does Rice, Powell and Obama got to do with affirmative action?

They got there by their own abilities. Rice is a neo-con Stanford professor. Powell was a military general and disagreed with Rumsfeld on how the Iraq War should be fought (he adovcated more troops and he was right). Obama is an extremely talented speaker.

The White House needs some colour!

ps. White is not a colour
0
s.e.r.e.n.e
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#369
Report 11 years ago
#369
(Original post by UGeNe)
The White House needs some colour!

ps. White is not a colour
What has that got to do with what I'm saying?

It's not affirmative action.
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#370
Report 11 years ago
#370
(Original post by s.e.r.e.n.e)
1. I know the context of the 100 years remark. But that's the idea at the back of his mind, to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and he let it slipped out in Straight Talk manner. I thank him for his honesty in admitting the he had wanted US to stay in Iraq for 100 years. To somehow feel that Iraq is going to be like Germany South Korea or Japan is unwise. For one, you don't have the sheer emphasis on science education in many middle-eastern countries.
If you knew McCain really didn't mean continuing the war for 100 years, and you knew the proper context of the quote, why did you mischaracterize McCain's position? This reminds me of people opposing Obama who say he is a Muslim who was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. They know it isn't true, but want to appeal to the popular prejudices, emotions, and fears of the public.
0
s.e.r.e.n.e
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#371
Report 11 years ago
#371
(Original post by Made in the USA)
If you knew McCain really didn't mean continuing the war for 100 years, and you knew the proper context of the quote, why did you mischaracterize McCain's position? This reminds me of people opposing Obama who say he is a Muslim who was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. They know it isn't true, but want to appeal to the popular prejudices, emotions, and fears of the public.
No, McCain wouldn't even mention about 100 years if he didn't have this idea at the back of his mind. Just like Obama probably despise "small town America", and these kind of things just keeps on slipping out from his mouth. There are somethings that politicians shouldn't say, but if they have this pre-conceived idea in their mind, it will just come out subconsciously at times.

You won't use the word 100 years unless you really have given some thought about it. That's straight talk from John McCain, a man who has built his entire career in the military. He has given us some straight talk that "there will be more wars", and he has said the solution to Iran is to "Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran". If McCain becomes president I'm convinced that we will go into war with Iran, and US will stay in Iraq for 100 years. I thank McCain for his honesty; straight talk from a guy who is a military man and war hero through and through.

If the British had stayed in America for 100 years during the war of independence the British would be fighting the Americans for 100 years. That's straight talk. If the US had stayed in Vietnam for another 30 years Americans would still be fighting the Vietnamese. Vietnam wouldn't have followed the Chinese style of foreign-direct investment driven market reforms.
0
s.e.r.e.n.e
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#372
Report 11 years ago
#372
This is John McCain at his best. That's straight talk from him, three "Wars" in five seconds. Areas of wars and national security is where John McCain is most comfortable in, and John McCain is definitely a war president.

0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#373
Report 11 years ago
#373
(Original post by s.e.r.e.n.e)
No, McCain wouldn't even mention about 100 years if he didn't have this idea at the back of his mind. Just like Obama probably despise "small town America", and these kind of things just keeps on slipping out from his mouth. There are somethings that politicians shouldn't say, but if they have this pre-conceived idea in their mind, it will just come out subconsciously at times.

You won't use the word 100 years unless you really have given some thought about it. That's straight talk from John McCain, a man who has built his entire career in the military. He has given us some straight talk that "there will be more wars", and he has said the solution to Iran is to "Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran". If McCain becomes president I'm convinced that we will go into war with Iran, and US will stay in Iraq for 100 years. I thank McCain for his honesty; straight talk from a guy who is a military man and war hero through and through.

If the British had stayed in America for 100 years during the war of independence the British would be fighting the Americans for 100 years. That's straight talk. If the US had stayed in Vietnam for another 30 years Americans would still be fighting the Vietnamese. Vietnam wouldn't have followed the Chinese style of foreign-direct investment driven market reforms.
We still have a military presence in Japan, so, using your logic, we are at war with Japan?
0
s.e.r.e.n.e
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#374
Report 11 years ago
#374
(Original post by Made in the USA)
We still have a military presence in Japan, so, using your logic, we are at war with Japan?
I've written just a few posts ago that Iraq is not like Japan South Korea or Germany, in terms of intensity (and lack of) of radical religion, emphasis on education, science and technology, culture and civilisation. I won't get into the specifics but let me just say this, if Japan and South Korea can be so advance technologically in such a short span of time, the same is going to happen to China and they are going to be tremendously successful. And for the same reason, I won't bet a cent on Iraq.
0
musrum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#375
Report 11 years ago
#375
Socialism, communism? Obama? wha?
0
monty1618
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#376
Report 11 years ago
#376
(Original post by s.e.r.e.n.e)
No, McCain wouldn't even mention about 100 years if he didn't have this idea at the back of his mind. Just like Obama probably despise "small town America", and these kind of things just keeps on slipping out from his mouth. There are somethings that politicians shouldn't say, but if they have this pre-conceived idea in their mind, it will just come out subconsciously at times.

You won't use the word 100 years unless you really have given some thought about it. That's straight talk from John McCain, a man who has built his entire career in the military. He has given us some straight talk that "there will be more wars", and he has said the solution to Iran is to "Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran". If McCain becomes president I'm convinced that we will go into war with Iran, and US will stay in Iraq for 100 years. I thank McCain for his honesty; straight talk from a guy who is a military man and war hero through and through.

If the British had stayed in America for 100 years during the war of independence the British would be fighting the Americans for 100 years. That's straight talk. If the US had stayed in Vietnam for another 30 years Americans would still be fighting the Vietnamese. Vietnam wouldn't have followed the Chinese style of foreign-direct investment driven market reforms.
You're pretty much twisting what was meant and you're throwing out a baseless assumption.

The way it went down:
- A person mentioned Bush stating that we may be in Iraq for another 50 years.
- McCain responds by saying, "Maybe 100 years." Where does that imply that he has thought it out beforehand? Which is more likely, that he has been thinking about being in Iraq for the next 100 years since even before that day or that he said 100 since it's simply doubling the number thrown out and exaggerating the original number to basically say that time was not the concern?
- McCain followed by noting that we have been in Japan for around 60 years and Korea for around 50 years. McCain is making a comparison to two wars where our later presence was peaceful. Not only are the two wars you use as a comparison kinda missing the point, but the assumptions are pretty much baseless.
- Then he followed with "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmer or wounded or killed, then it's fine by me." only proving that he's talking about a peaceful presence.

Overall, McCain was basically saying 'What is the problem of staying in Iraq for 100 years if it's a general American presence where no Americans are being harmed?'

I have no idea why those quotes received the attention they did. It's beyond me.
0
monty1618
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#377
Report 11 years ago
#377
(Original post by s.e.r.e.n.e)
You won't use the word 100 years unless you really have given some thought about it. That's straight talk from John McCain, a man who has built his entire career in the military. He has given us some straight talk that "there will be more wars", and he has said the solution to Iran is to "Bomb Iran, Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran". If McCain becomes president I'm convinced that we will go into war with Iran, and US will stay in Iraq for 100 years. I thank McCain for his honesty; straight talk from a guy who is a military man and war hero through and through.
You sound like the following which tells only half the story.

0
s.e.r.e.n.e
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#378
Report 11 years ago
#378
(Original post by monty1618)
You're pretty much twisting what was meant and you're throwing out a baseless assumption.

The way it went down:
- A person mentioned Bush stating that we may be in Iraq for another 50 years.
- McCain responds by saying, "Maybe 100 years." Where does that imply that he has thought it out beforehand? Which is more likely, that he has been thinking about being in Iraq for the next 100 years since even before that day or that he said 100 since it's simply doubling the number thrown out and exaggerating the original number to basically say that time was not the concern?
- McCain followed by noting that we have been in Japan for around 60 years and Korea for around 50 years. McCain is making a comparison to two wars where our later presence was peaceful. Not only are the two wars you use as a comparison kinda missing the point, but the assumptions are pretty much baseless.
- Then he followed with "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmer or wounded or killed, then it's fine by me." only proving that he's talking about a peaceful presence.

Overall, McCain was basically saying 'What is the problem of staying in Iraq for 100 years if it's a general American presence where no Americans are being harmed?'

I have no idea why those quotes received the attention they did. It's beyond me.
Why? Because it comes from John McCain.

To be quite frank, monty, you get John McCain into the Whitehouse, and I do believe that we will be at war with Iran. This is the thing that gets me very nervous about him. I think we need an Eisenhower who got us out of Korea, or a Nixon who tried to get us out of Vietnam with honor. I think this is that kind of president this country needs. There is no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. Can anyone see John McCain as some kind of peaceful dove sitting for months at the negotiation table? It is preposterous. His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He is threatening the Iranians, he calls Putin's eyes KGB, we are going to be in Iraq for 100 years. I'm telling you what John McCain is telling you he is promising you.

I don't tell you whether he is starting new wars. But he expects them, he anticipates them and he is predicting them. And I think he is talking straight because John McCain is a red faced, angry guy who constantly explodes! His whole career is in the military, his big issue the one he is comfortable with is what? National security, Islamic radicalism, the long war, 100 years in Iraq. That's where he is comfortable, that's where he is at his best!
0
s.e.r.e.n.e
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#379
Report 11 years ago
#379
(Original post by monty1618)
You sound like the following which tells only half the story.

This ad is really a smear because the democrats cut of the middle part of McCain's speech. It is like editing what other people says. Disgusting.

But that's still better than Not Alex. When I first saw it I thought it's Dove advertisement.
0
monty1618
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#380
Report 11 years ago
#380
(Original post by s.e.r.e.n.e)
Why? Because it comes from John McCain.

To be quite frank, monty, you get John McCain into the Whitehouse, and I do believe that we will be at war with Iran. This is the thing that gets me very nervous about him. I think we need an Eisenhower who got us out of Korea, or a Nixon who tried to get us out of Vietnam with honor. I think this is that kind of president this country needs. There is no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. Can anyone see John McCain as some kind of peaceful dove sitting for months at the negotiation table? It is preposterous. His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He is threatening the Iranians, he calls Putin's eyes KGB, we are going to be in Iraq for 100 years. I'm telling you what John McCain is telling you he is promising you.

I don't tell you whether he is starting new wars. But he expects them, he anticipates them and he is predicting them. And I think he is talking straight because John McCain is a red faced, angry guy who constantly explodes! His whole career is in the military, his big issue the one he is comfortable with is what? National security, Islamic radicalism, the long war, 100 years in Iraq. That's where he is comfortable, that's where he is at his best!
My point
------------
Your head

Wake me up when you respond to something I actually said, and do so within the context of which it is said...
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.13%
No (216)
76.87%

Watched Threads

View All