Before a candidate can run for president, wouldn't it be a good idea to make that person take an I.Q test to ensure that he or she has the mental capacity to handle to rigors of the job?

In the case of sitting presidents, re-tests might be in order to ensure they haven't gone senile or become brain damaged while in office.

A little like driving tests, once you hit a certain age.

Before a candidate can run for president, wouldn't it be a good idea to make that person take an I.Q test to ensure that he or she has the mental capacity to handle to rigors of the job?

In the case of sitting presidents, re-tests might be in order to ensure they haven't gone senile or become brain damaged while in office.
Bush would have just used his hidden earpiece and have had Cheney feed him the answers though.

Bush would have just used his hidden earpiece and have had Cheney feed him the answers though.

Did you hear Dubya's lame explanation this morning for the bulge?

I guess the assumption was that if I were straying off course they would ... kind of like a hunting dog, they would punch a buzzer and I would jerk back into place.

Is there any doubt that george is the stupidest President that we have ever had ?

Would you be scared if you took a job, and you later found out the president of the company was exactly like george ??????

Is there any doubt that george is the stupidest President that we have ever had ?

Would you be scared if you took a job, and you later found out the president of the company was exactly like george ??????

Stupid is probably about right. He's not dumb, that is, he probably has a reasonable ability to learn (if he didn't totally fry his brain with his years of alcoholism). Yet, I get the impression he pretty much has no intellectual curiosity about anything. This leaves him ignorant and stupid, and largely depending on others to make informed decisions for him, and his born-again Christian self-assuredness that he can't go wrong whatever he does.

The idea of george as my boss, is something right out of Dilbert.

Maybe we can also have an IQ test to vote, and a literacy test. Maybe even a poll tax to be sure that destitute bums don't get to vote.



Before a candidate can run for president, wouldn't it be a good idea to make that person take an I.Q test to ensure that he or she has the mental capacity to handle to rigors of the job?

In the case of sitting presidents, re-tests might be in order to ensure they haven't gone senile or become brain damaged while in office.

Stupid is probably about right. He's not dumb, that is, he probably has a reasonable ability to learn (if he didn't totally fry his brain with his years of alcoholism). Yet, I get the impression he pretty much has no intellectual curiosity about anything. This leaves him ignorant and stupid, and largely depending on others to make informed decisions for him, and his born-again Christian self-assuredness that he can't go wrong whatever he does.

Whether or not you agree with his policies, isn't it sad that a man as incurious as him is president of our great country?

Maybe even a poll tax to be sure that destitute bums don't get to vote.

The essence of a Republican's bedrock belief in the power of democracy: squelch the vote! The less people who vote the better.

a Black C Student is destined to a life of poverty. A white C student can become President.

a Black C Student is destined to a life of poverty. A white C student can become President.

Amen brother!

good to see you're not dead. But it's this self-assurednes that scares me. Either he lacks any sense of reflection or believes he's "on a Mission from God". Both are scary when it comes to being in control of the largest arsenal on Earth.

Man! Some thread you started here V. You all must feel dumb and dumber that Bush IS president and you all are here complaining about it! LOL!!!

Man! Some thread you started here V. You all must feel dumb and dumber that Bush IS president and you all are here complaining about it! LOL!!!

I was born neither with a silver foot in my mouth nor into a political dynasty.

You sound a little envious. Besides do you think that's all it takes? Maybe you aren't as smart as I was giving you credit for.

You sound a little envious. Besides do you think that's all it takes? Maybe you aren't as smart as I was giving you credit for.

An idiot like Bush isn't becoming president without built-in advantages. You think if he was a poor schmuck, he'd have gotten into Andover, Yale, Harvard, and become POTUS?

No, but not many do. Clinton was probably the closest to that description. Still, do you think that's all it takes?

No, but not many do. Clinton was probably the closest to that description. Still, do you think that's all it takes?
That lots of money and the ability to lie consistently and convincingly as often as needed. Doesn't seem that publilc speaking or debate skills are especially important as evidenced by GW.

it was all it takes. you think without his 'family' he'd have
A) graduated, got into a Ivy League college
B) avoided service in Viet Nam
C) been appointed president and bankrupted 3 corporations (2 Texas Oil, 1 Baseball Team)
D) Been elected governor on a "I'll execute more" platform in a state w/ already the highest
rate of executions
E) won the Republican Primary over superior contenders
F) had his fathers friends / appointees in the supreme court appoint him president

No, but not many do. Clinton was probably the closest to that description. Still, do you think that's all it takes?

All what takes? Clinton is a good example of a person from humble beginngs who became president. But my point is that Bush would not have become president if he was from a podunk place and his name was Lushinsky.

Bush is the poster child for the fight against the soft bigotry of low expectations. I'm sure <i>he</i> would agree that he could only benefit from a regimen of high standards and frequent, rigorous testing.

Try to focus, I know you aren't getting much work done for your boss today, but do you think all it takes is money and connections?

Bush is the poster child for the fight against the soft bigotry of low expectations. I'm sure <i>he</i> would agree that he could only benefit from a regimen of high standards and frequent, rigorous testing.
In a nation where millions of dollars are spent to create TV shows like Will and Grace, Garfield the Movie is actually attended by anyone, Judith Kranz is a best selling "novelist" and McDonalds supplies the food of choice for countless people maybe Bush is the ideal candidate. You don't have to think to like Bush. He'll spoonfeed you the reasons why he should be president. So just pull the lever for Bush and go back to watching Survivor. Leave the driving to George and company.

Try to focus, I know you aren't getting much work done for your boss today...
That's an unnecessary, nasty comment.

...but do you think all it takes is money and connections?
All, of course not. But it takes money and connections. And Incurious George would not become president without plenty of it, stretching all the way to the SC!

Well it was part of today's other theme :) No offense intended and nasty may be the wrong word.

The SC had nothing to do with it. They never ruled on anything relating to the last election other than to tell the Florida Sc they couldn't change the rules in mid stream. They said count votes if you want, but you must count all of the votes in all of the counties. Sounds quite reasonable to me. Besides, Gore never won any recount. Pleas, this is a tired, old effort. It has no basis in fact.

So let's see who besides Clinto ever won that high office without connections? The real JFK? No he had connections to the Mafia. Please tell us who. I can't think of any besides Old Abe, and he was a Republican! LOL!!!

LOL!!!

You post LOL over and over and over like Dave's father in "Breaking Away" says refund?!, refund?!, refund?!...

Hello, I said money and connections were necessary to become POTUS. And if Abe Lincoln was alive today, and he was able to take stock of Dubya, he'd straightaway advocate an I.Q. test to run for and remain president!

Re the SC, what they did was a travesty. In 2000, Florida, at best, was a statistical tie; at worst, tens of thousands of voters were illegitimately not allowed even to vote. The election process should have been repaired after 2000 because clearly it was broken. Republicans, though, like yourself are happy to have elections that are not above board.

You post LOL over and over and over like Dave's father in "Breaking Away" says refund?!, refund?!, refund?!...

Hello, I said money and connections were necessary to become POTUS. And if Abe Lincoln was alive today, and he was able to take stock of Dubya, he'd straightaway advocate an I.Q. test to run for and remain president!

Re the SC, what they did was a travesty. In 2000, Florida, at best, was a statistical tie; at worst, tens of thousands of voters were illegitimately not allowed even to vote. The election process should have been repaired after 2000 because clearly it was broken. Republicans, though, like yourself are happy to have elections that are not above board.
Lincoln would never win today. He was too ugly. And wasn't his wife clinically insane as well?

would have and should have said 'states issue' let the state decide. That is what a conservative court is supposed to do. But all of a sudden the court becomes 'activist' read LIBERAL and intercedes on a state issue. It's funny how they do this when it serves their interests. Kinda like the FERC saying "state issue" to CA over the energy rip off (by Texas companies). Now last time I checked interstate commerce, or transfer of utilities interstate is 'national' and falls under the FERC. When the CA PUC exposed this, along with Tricky Dicky the 2nds meetings w/ said energy officials (and campaign contributors) and tried to subpoena the minutes they hide under 'national security'. So Mr. Cheney did you stick it to California because we're liberal, to make heaps of cash for your pals or both? Finally what I wanna know is how can they cry FLIP FLOPPERS when their President was put into office by the SC's greatest flip flop off all time.

It's sooooooo easy to believe in someone who gives you all the answers, and that everything will be just fine. If people tell you what you want to hear, you'll follow them into the pits of hell.

LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!! :) Yeah I like it! LOL!!!

Um, again, the SC didn't actually do anything. Maybe you should google their ruling. And again, Gore never won any recounts.

As for elections that are not above board, it seems the Democrats will stop at nothing. You don't think Florida was a setup? I mean how could Gore have had his posse of lawyers in Florida that fast without knowing the fix was on for him. He was so shocked because they couldn't even cheat right! LOL!!! (that one was for good measure)

you should laugh less, read and think more. Supreme Court did 'do' something

LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!! :) Yeah I like it! LOL!!!

Google or goggle? LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!! Have a nice day!

Thanks for proving again that the first rule of a Republican hack is accuse the other side first. To reiterate, the actual results in Florida were a statistical tie. Without doubt, though, the Florida 2000 presidential election results were unfair and unjust. Tens of thousands of voters votes weren't counted, largely in places that historically vote for the Democrat. Coincidence? The official recount had the difference being 537 votes. The SC ruling was 5-4. In general the SC rightly wanted a uniform recount. However, since different precincts used (and continue to use) different machines, how could one be possible?

What should not be forgotten is that the four dissenting members of the Supreme Court were mindful that the cornerstone of democracy, enshrined in the Constitution, is the right of citizens to vote with the understanding that each vote be counted. As the dust settled, Justice Stevens wrote: "Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in [this Court] as the impartial guardian of the rule of law."

to interfere / override a state decision is the work of an interventionist court not a 'conservative' one. Neo Cons can't deal with this as it once again creates 'cognitive dissonance'. kinda like having a Party platform that says ' stay out of the (people, state, etc) way and then wants to dictate morality. or one that says "let the market decide" and when the market 'decides' it likes a certain DJ whom they abhor they start strongarming his employers and fining them without a trial.

good to see you're not dead. But it's this self-assurednes that scares me. Either he lacks any sense of reflection or believes he's "on a Mission from God". Both are scary when it comes to being in control of the largest arsenal on Earth.

A president ought to

a) not start with a pre-conceptions about how to solve every problem
b) pose piercing, pertinent questions to his cabinet members
c) not accept easy answers as answers
d) listen to a variety of viewpoints before making a decision

Dubya is incapable of all of the above.

Hey you plagiarised too! http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1209-03.htm Your're supposed to give credit where credit is due :) Just ask Czar.

What does different machines have to do with anything? Recount them all or nothing. Bush could very well have demanded a recount in the counties Gore didn't want counted, anyway. Besides the recount came up with nothing. The SC said you cannot change the rule in the middle of the election. Period!

Recount them all or nothing. Bush could very well have demanded a recount in the counties Gore didn't want counted, anyway. Besides the recount came up with nothing. The SC said you cannot change the rule in the middle of the election. Period!

By a 5 to f*cking 4 margin! If you had the imagination to put yourself in the other candidate's shoes, tell me your opinion wouldn't be the opposite of what you're now proclaiming?

Nice "goggling" by the way. I like sending you on wild goose chases.

sudden 'activist' FLIP FLOP of conservative court.
what irked me the most was when they announced Gore had taken Florida and they cut to Bush looking shocked and then running out of the room. I can here it clearly (the phone call) "Dammit Jeb, I told you to take care of that, now FIX IT!!!"

Um, they called Bush the winner first and then changed their minds. Didn't you see Dan Rather crying?

your clever ad hominums only reflect your true lack of politcal acumen. (all too common)
See the STATE has a right to change it's mind if it finds fault in it's system.
A CONSERVATIVE COURT would support the State's decision.PERIOD
A LIBERAL COURT would intervene.
So how do a bunch of Cons. SC justices turn interventionist? When it suits the
I know it's hard for you Bushies to second guess anything as it's OBVIOUS all his decisions have been spot on.
A consistent president can be a good thing, but not when it's consistently WRONG.
"Although it's true that not all conservatives are stupid people. Most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

your clever ad hominums only reflect your true lack of politcal acumen. (all too common)
See the STATE has a right to change it's mind if it finds fault in it's system.
A CONSERVATIVE COURT would support the State's decision.PERIOD
A LIBERAL COURT would intervene.
So how do a bunch of Cons. SC justices turn interventionist? When it suits the
I know it's hard for you Bushies to second guess anything as it's OBVIOUS all his decisions have been spot on.
A consistent president can be a good thing, but not when it's consistently WRONG.
"Although it's true that not all conservatives are stupid people. Most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill


It is even easier than that ask STEAM to show you the part of the constitution that gives the Judiciary power over states electors?

Then ask him to look up the section that grants the states the power over said electors just to see if somehow the framers duplicated themselves giving both the states and the Judiciary power over the electors?

Too me it doesn't matter one way or the other what is done is done, but the fact is the supreme court acted with zero constitutional authority by saying that they could determine how a states electors should vote. SIMPLE. If anything in a disputed election such as this with neither candidate receiving the majority of electors needed to win outright the 107th ( I believe) should have picked the President and V.P. The result would have been the same mind you. But it would have been constitutional.