Ok, ok. I'll comment. But only a little. You've read it, right?
Here's a key paragraph:
My guess is that Bush associates exercise with discipline, and associates a lack of discipline with his younger, boozehound days. "The president," said Fleischer, "finds [exercise] very healthy in terms of … keeping in shape. But it's also good for the mind." The notion of a connection between physical and mental potency is, of course, silly. (Consider all the perfectly toned airheads in Hollywood — or, perhaps, the president himself.)It is, of course, not silly to make a connection between exercise and mental health. A quick google search will disprove that. Note the sentence suggesting the President is stupid. They can't have it both ways. Either he's an evil genius with plans to take over the world, or he's a mindless numbskull who can't find the bathroom without Karl Rove taking him. But he's one or the other. Of course, he also fails to note that John Kerry had worse grades at Yale.
At the same time that the left is constantly harping on the obesity problem in the US, they hate Bush so much that they mock his dedication to one of the primary solutions to it. Contradictions abound. I haven't even mentioned Clinton yet. I don't recall similar articles when he jogged daily (and stopped in McDonalds on the way). See, I said it was too easy. I'll stop now.
Read it.
UPDATE: Independent Sources has more.
5 comments:
Erich, I would like to hear your reasoning behind Bush being stupid sometime. I'm sure it would be exciting. Of course we feel differently in Texas (and in a majority of the US I might add.) Not that popular opinion equals truth, but I'm sure your reasons are well-thought out, however incorrect they may be. :)
I'm glad you picked up on my theme of a distorted dualistic perspective. I just thought it was so obvious it needn't be written. ;)
I should also have noted that there's no reason a google search should've been necessary to disprove his comment. The very fact that he allowed it to be published is just amazing to me. I would've thought it was satire had I not known better.
You guys need to read two postings:
The first is about Bush's intellect. It might surprise you that he got the same grades as John Kerry. http://independentsources.com/2005/06/08/the-la-times-whiffs-on-the-kerry-grade-story/
and the second is about the LAT op-ed.
http://independentsources.com/2005/07/22/lat-columnist-prefers-fat-presidents/
If we want to talk about lack of intellect then let's talk about the moron who wrote the LAT op-ed.
"The first is about Bush's intellect. It might surprise you that he got the same grades as John Kerry. "
Insider,
I made mention of that fact in my posting.
"If we want to talk about lack of intellect then let's talk about the moron who wrote the LAT op-ed."
Indeed. That's what the topic of my post was about.
Thanks for your comments.
Erich, I'm sure you don't care what a majority of the US thinks, nor am I suggesting that you should. But the fact remains, he won the election by a majority of the voters, something Clinton never was able to accomplish.
And I'm quite positive it wasn't satire. The author is from the New Republic and has written other inane screeds about Bush.
I agree that this discussion would be much too complicated to carry out in this comments section, but you still haven't clarified the 2 reasons you do mention. It's unlike you to not support your arguments.
What would you have preferred in the way of reaction to 9/11?
And what about his foreign policy makes it possibly the worst in history?
Are you opposed to war? Is it the spread of democracy through toppling dictatorships that you dislike?
Let's flesh out at least the 2 topics you started out with. That may be a better way to tackle this discussion, little nuggets of discourse at a time.
OK Erich, this will take a while. I'll put some things together and reply back soon. Indeed you did warn me, but when was the last time I struck you as someone who heeded warnings?
Post a Comment