IS bush a dry drunk?

rawbone8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Posts
2,827
Media
1
Likes
295
Points
303
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
While I agree that he certainly exhibits those traits, I am not sure I would jump to those conclusions - it is not easy for an outside observer to make a diagnosis based simply on a set of behaviors.

Diagnosis and prognosis aside, there is a lot of merit to the article. Whether it is from years of substance abuse or from a life of failing to live up to the family expectations, one thing is clear. George W. falls way short of grandpappy Prescott and pappy George H. W. I admit, I have not studied his biography, but it seems that he was never able to start anything by himself, and he even failed when GHW and Prescott set him up. He failed so miserable at business that the family decided to set him up in politics, where even his failures could be "spin-doctored" into successes, and that continues to this day.

For those of you who are not familiar at all with his background, you should do a couple of online searches for "Prescott Bush". Be sure to read at least at least 3 or 4 different sources, hopefully finding a couple of "pro" and a couple of "anti" to get a fairly balanced feel. Prescott Bush was not necessarily a nice man, and his family empire should be viewed with a bit of a jaundiced eye, so to speak.
DC— is that an oblique reference to

(A) the rumour that as a young man Prescott and his officer mates indulged in skulduggery (literally) by digging up Geronimo's grave and stealing the cadaver's skull as a trophy for the Skull and Bones group at Yale?
or
(B) being officer of a company that did so much trading with the Nazis?

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif] Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
Saturday September 25, 2004
The Guardian


[/FONT] George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
 

B_Hickboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Posts
10,059
Media
0
Likes
61
Points
183
Location
That twinge in your intestines
madame_zora said:
I was going through some old emails, and I found a letter I had exchanged with the author of the following article. I have referred to it recently in conversations with a couple friends here, and I was happy to have found the letter, so I could find the original article. Happily, it is still online, and poses some interesting perspecitve on what could be an important part of the big picture of what's wrong with our president, and the rhetoric sweeping the system. Look at ALL the people who have "come out" as alcoholics of late.

As an alcoholic myself, I found this article to be extremely accurate in the descriptions of the condition, and the sources cited were far above average for such an undertaking. These several years later, the imformation seems even more relevant. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.


http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html

Well, DUH!!!
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
You guys do realize that NO president writes his own speeches right? Or really does anything at all... he's really just a figurehead representative for the country more than an active entity.

That's why I find it both futile and humorous that individuals choose to hate any one political figure so much, .. so often.

Personally, I stay out of politics. All I have ever seen them do is tear people apart. And while divergence is a natural process in the universe (as is convergence), anything with a main function of facilitating a negative natural process (i.e. politics greatest achievement is catalyzing the divergence of people, rather than letting it occur naturally) is something that all people would be better off without.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
AndrewEndowed24 said:
All his life he was fairly mediocre, at least from the perspective of the positions he both apsired and was thrust in-to.

You're demanding a pretty high standard there. All our presidents after Hoover have been exceedingly mediocre types. None were noted for any great exploits or contributions in the intellectual, artistic, or business realms. Nor in sports or other subsets of the entertainment industry. (Introducing "Death Valley Days" doesn't count.)

(Sorry, I forgot Eisenhower, who obviously managed to get his name in the papers a few times before his election. So, who else did anything notable in his pre-presidential days?)
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
big dirigible said:
You're demanding a pretty high standard there. All our presidents after Hoover have been exceedingly mediocre types. None were noted for any great exploits or contributions in the intellectual, artistic, or business realms. Nor in sports or other subsets of the entertainment industry. (Introducing "Death Valley Days" doesn't count.)

(Sorry, I forgot Eisenhower, who obviously managed to get his name in the papers a few times before his election. So, who else did anything notable in his pre-presidential days?)

Hehe. And we seem to neglect how tough of a job it is to have 90% of the 5/6 billionish (hope I got the number right there) people on Earth hating you, no matter what you do is good or bad. Certainly not an enviable job (although I also do not see that as a reason for pardon of any decisions either necessarily). I, personally, would never want to be president of my club, which I'm active in (even though perhaps I shouldn't be due to over politicking lol, but at least I learned it through experience), let alone a township, state, country, etc. It is in no way glorious. I actually have to say I commend ALL of the individuals who have done it, just for the fact that they did. Yet, again, that does not exonerate anything that has happened in all of history one way or the other, it just recognizes one factor of honor in leadership of any kind.

P.S. I saw a politician named Barack Obama on TV the other day, while I was in a meeting (lol, hey, don't judge my meeting priorities!). Anyhow, a co-member mentioned that she was in South Carolina at the time he was some kind of politician there and randomly also ended up in Illinois as he is the senator? there now. Also I saw another friend of mine mentioned him as a leader and excellent speaker. Obviously, personally, I have no opinoin of these politician types, but I am curious as to what you guys have to think of him on LPSG. He seems to be arising much interest around the area I live in the midwest at least, so I am curious to see if others feel strongly also, just out of curiousity. So let me know what you think.
 

AndrewEndowed24

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Posts
169
Media
8
Likes
59
Points
238
Age
34
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Yes, but perhaps mediocre is an understatement.


One thing i'd like to point out is that the problem with Bush's intelligence is not as straightforward as many would like to believe. I think his SAT score puts him in about the 80th percentile of US intelligence, which means that he is probably significantly smarter than most of the people bashing him. That being said, John Kerry's military intelligence test correllates to a lower overall IQ than Bush's SAT score (and i believe Bush took the SAT at a time before studying for it was considered possible anywhere but Kaplan's basement in brooklyn). The problem with Bush is that he lacks the all important quality for a stateman, verbal intelligence. Bush's near 500 verbal score probably means he has a significant degree of trouble interpreting everything from the public statements of other world leaders to the intelligence documents he sees. It is his lack of verbal intelligence rather than overall (g) that is his handicap.Kerry on the other hand -the lawyer- may have a a lower overall IQ but is probably significantly superior to Bush in the verbal range. This is what people should say they mean when they claim that Kerry is smarter than Bush, they should clarify that they mean that Kerry has an intelligence which is more relevant to statesmanship than Bush's.
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
AndrewEndowed24 said:
Yes, but perhaps mediocre is an understatement.


One thing i'd like to point out is that the problem with Bush's intelligence is not as straightforward as many would like to believe. I think his SAT score puts him in about the 80th percentile of US intelligence, which means that he is probably significantly smarter than most of the people bashing him. That being said, John Kerry's military intelligence test correllates to a lower overall IQ than Bush's SAT score (and i believe Bush took the SAT at a time before studying for it was considered possible anywhere but Kaplan's basement in brooklyn). The problem with Bush is that he lacks the all important quality for a stateman, verbal intelligence. Bush's near 500 verbal score probably means he has a significant degree of trouble interpreting everything from the public statements of other world leaders to the intelligence documents he sees. It is his lack of verbal intelligence rather than overall (g) that is his handicap.Kerry on the other hand -the lawyer- may have a a lower overall IQ but is probably significantly superior to Bush in the verbal range. This is what people should say they mean when they claim that Kerry is smarter than Bush, they should clarify that they mean that Kerry has an intelligence which is more relevant to statesmanship than Bush's.

1. Standardized test scores are "bunk" as Henry Ford would say.
2. Lawyers are highly intelligent people, yet very much the scourge of existence. I have no problem with them as people, nor as incredible opportunists, let me say, but if they actually paid attention to what they did, well then we'd all see.
3. Actually a 500 on verbal is not too bad at all (in terms of the GRE, which is higher than the SAT by far, and from what I understand they have very similar scoring)
4. I'm no Bush advocate nor nemesis.
5. (opinion) I found Kerry neither interesting nor impressive by any means. I blame this on why "democrat" fanatics did not fare better in the last election.
6. Hmm, anyone notice that democrat and republican is the same thing nowadays??? It's a grand fascade that they put over on us now to think we are different, yet we are all wishy-washy believers in nothing, hah. Every debate is a big lie where one side says one thing, the other refutes the opposite, then repeat, yet all the answers are the same. Each is identically mid-stream nothingness. If this is true of politicians before my time, I definately accept that as the history of politics and rest my case, if not then we have something to judge here with the eroding of our ... what once was a still sickening (but MUCH more effective) 2 party system right?... not more? Well, u've read my posts, I've said that etc etc nothing is evertying, blah blah, this guy knows nothing, blah blah, crazy guy, blah blah, what a useless poster.
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
AndrewEndowed24 said:
his verbal score was from the sats, i don't know if anyone knows his GRE score

I was saying SAT is somewhat comparable to the GRE. Except the SAT is a high school test and the GRE is a masters/PHD level test. They have the same scoring scales though. He very well may have not taken the GRE lol.

All I was saying is, in any event, you very much played down his 500 score, whereas I was saying it is at very least slightly above average. That's all. I.E. 40th percentile is my estimate at very least, meaning "supposedly smarter than 60 percent of people who take the SAT"
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
AndrewEndowed24 said:
okay, maybe there is a problem with *my* reading comprehension lol.

Though I aced the verbal GRE and nearly aced the verbal SAT lol.

You aced the verbal either of those and I gotta say you should be applying to some presitgious programs lol. At least of U.S.A. kids, its a huge deal to dominate on the verbal part of the GRE.

I got a 550, which I was disappointed in, yet then found out it was pretty goodish lol. Math, (which I honestly say is useless because certain programs.. I.E. engineering.. require ONLY the math portion, so many many of the people taking the GRE ACE the math portion and completley fail the verbal/writing sections, thus making the math portion useless. ahh sorry for the ramble, but not only does this invalidate the test, but ALL standardized tests are usless) .. breath........ I did very, very, well on the writing section (top 4%), which was cool... but I'm still the kind of person who says "what can you do for me..." I don't give a darn what your test scores are at all.

The problem is, in U.S.A. America, we only care about your "title" and nothing else. That distant Orient, is the exact opposite, in many ways, they don't care what you are, they say "what have you done for me lately."
 

AndrewEndowed24

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Posts
169
Media
8
Likes
59
Points
238
Age
34
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
a 500 verbal score on the SATs is considered fairly poor here because people are not applying to 'math only' programs like theymight for grad school.
On the other hand a 550 on the GRE wouldn't be bad at all if you were applying to an engineering program and had really high math scores. This is actually my exact point, the scores are only important relative to what your responsibilities will be in whatever you are applying for.

The point remains that the skills that are important for an engineer are pretty fucking different from those important for a statesman, verbal intelligence is crucial for diplomacy and you need quite a bit of it. You can't say 'one score is good, one score is bad' some scores are quite good for certain endeavors but mediocre for others.
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
AndrewEndowed24 said:
a 500 verbal score on the SATs is considered fairly poor here because people are not applying to 'math only' programs like theymight for grad school.
On the other hand a 550 on the GRE wouldn't be bad at all if you were applying to an engineering program and had really high math scores. This is actually my exact point, the scores are only important relative to what your responsibilities will be in whatever you are applying for.

The point remains that the skills that are important for an engineer are pretty fucking different from those important for a statesman, verbal intelligence is crucial for diplomacy and you need quite a bit of it.

Actually, that's not right. A 550 is good for a political science program or anything else (GRE). I'm saying 750-800s on the GRE (which means 95-100% on the test) ruins the math portions because certain programs only look for the math attribute. On the other hand, basically any "non-mathmatical" discipline you chose bases its admissions on all three factors, which it should discount the math portion of course, and only count the other two..... which even more it should only count the many other admissions factors which the GRE only usually makes up 10-20%.
 

AndrewEndowed24

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Posts
169
Media
8
Likes
59
Points
238
Age
34
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Definitely not, at least not if a 550 GRE = a 550 SAT.

Either these tests are equal to one another or the GRE is harder and thus bush's 540 SAT would equal an even lower GRE and thus the relative value of a 550 GRE score would be irrelevant in measuring Bush's 540 SAT. One also has to note that the sample for grad students may actually be skewed lower because many of the most intelligent will be going to law school, business school or lighting out on their own. Whereas almost every bright kid tries to go to college and thus takes the SATs.
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
AndrewEndowed24 said:
Definitely not, at least not if a 550 GRE = a 550 SAT.

Either these tests are equal to one another or the GRE is harder and thus bush's 540 SAT would equal an even lower GRE and thus the relative value of a 550 GRE score would be irrelevant in measuring Bush's 540 SAT.

Well, like I said I do not know the conversion factor (although I'm about to take the 12 seconds to end this and do in on Google), but basically high school 12th graders take the SAT and any age people who want to academically earn a masters or PHD take the GRE ( "acadmecialy" meaning, if you work for a co. and they pay for it, you don't have to take the test, in general).
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Pumblechook said:
Well, like I said I do not know the conversion factor (although I'm about to take the 12 seconds to end this and do in on Google), but basically high school 12th graders take the SAT and any age people who want to academically earn a masters or PHD take the GRE ( "acadmecialy" meaning, if you work for a co. and they pay for it, you don't have to take the test, in general).

business people take the GMAT btw
 

AndrewEndowed24

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Posts
169
Media
8
Likes
59
Points
238
Age
34
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
I know, the LSATs GMATS and MCATS mean that the GRE is missing large segments of the most intelligent pop in it's sample. This might make a 550 verbal seem better to a mediocre poli sci dept. Also -If english is your second language, your verbal score might have been considered quite good on that basis.

We also have to remember that big state universities may feel pressure to let in moderately qualified applicants simply because of the relative unpopularity of going to grad school in certain areas of the humanities. They want to make money and fill their depts. This doesn'tmean that most of the people they admit will either finish grad school or find a teaching job afterwards -that is, saying that a certain GRE score will get you into to grad school doesn't necessarily bespeak any legitimate ability on your part, grad school's have their own motivations for admissions.
 

Pumblechook

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Posts
334
Media
2
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
AndrewEndowed24 said:
I know, the LSATs GMATS and MCATS mean that the GRE is missing large segments of the most intelligent pop in it's sample. This might make a 550 verbal seem better to a mediocre poli sci dept. Also -If english is your second language, your verbal score might have been considered quite good on that basis.

Insulting me by making up fake statistics is quite futile and foolish.

1) 550 verbal is about good for ANY (i.e. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.) even though in MY opinion, out of 800 maximum, I feel it's not, but that's because I'm mislead on it all. Those poli-sci programs only care about your writing score 1-6 scale.
2) tought to insult someone when they admit themselves to imperfections huh????
3) Bronxy read this and back me up... cuz I need it..
4) not because my argument is not strong, it is completely solidified,... but the readers of this post cannot understand what is firm and what is yielding, don't understand that is good and that which is bad, and do not understand .. anything pretty much... :X