Replies

The way in which you wrote what I referred to and questioned, was not what you now claim it to have been.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Please translate this sentence into English.

I'm not surprised that you are willing to accept Nixon's intelligence. The man was a Republican, right?

Jimmy Carter graduated in the top 10% of his class at Annapolis, was smart enough see nuclear propulsion as the wave of the future, worked for the navy as a powerplant engineer, and had Hymen Rickover's blessing as a future nuculear sub commander before his father died unexpectedly. He then resigned his commission and returned to Georgia an his family farm.

Bill Clinton was Phi Beta Kappa from Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, and earned a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford. Any of his associates that might of suggest that his wife was smarter than he is are doing so for political and feminist reasons. One look at how the two handle themselves in public confirms this. And not to take anything away from HRC. Her intelligence should also be obvious to any impartial observer. For that matter, she's probably brighter than Reagan or Palin, but her people skills let her down.

Here are a couple of ideas you need to get into your head: People are not necessarily stupid just because you disagree with them politically. And there are no idiot presidents. There are probably few Senators, for that matter, but that's for a different discussion. OTOH, I have no doubt that some presidents have sought out less intelligent VP candidates. And the job probably appeals to less intelligent men. Nixon reportedly hated the idea. In any case, acknoledging the fact that any unbiased observer can see: Reagan was no rocket scientist (but he WAS a keen observer, and he stuck to his principles) while Jimmy Carter actually WAS a nuclear engineer, and Bill Clinton WAS a Rhodes scholar, is not to be taken as an insult to Reagan. That same impartial observer is also bound to acknowledge that Reagan led a far more productive and successful presidency. Sarah Palin is no idiot, clearly. But at the moment, she has nothing she can point to that puts her in the same orbit as Carter or Clinton. Don't make the same mistake Palin's (& Reagan's) detractors are making, that of discounting someone's intelligence, just because they believe differently than you. Actually, they are doing that to Bush as well, right.

By the time the GOP primaries reach N.Y. and California, there will be far more in them than Palin and Romney; not to mention the fact that in all probability ( based on the '08 GOP primaries ), Romney may have bowed out already

Please translate this sentence into English while you're at it. I can't respond to you if I have no idea what you're talking about.

And no need to keep bringing you Romney's Olympic post. I will repeat to you that it was never a matter of interest to me. I'm not a Romney fan, and it gets boring making factual observations to people who hate the man primarily because he's standing in the way of Sara Palin. My point remains that Romney has the most impressive private sector resume of any current candidate, including Palin. That was the only point. Everything else is irrelevant.

Finally, and this is just a personal preference, your lame attempts at trash-talking (which have already evolved into personal attacks) are nothing more than a distraction. They are not helping your argument.

Of course you are finding it difficult to understand my well constructed English. Sadly, anyone who can write such disjointed, ungrammatical, butcher English prose as :"Any of his associates that(SIC)might of(SIC)suggest (SIC) that his wife was smarter than he is(SIC) are doing so for political and feminist reasons." would be befuddled by my posts.

For the record, it was at the very start of Bill Clinton's presidency, when the N.Y. Times, other papers, as well as weekly news magazines were doing fluff pieces about the Clintons, that their friends and acquaintances were all quoted as saying that she was the one with the real brains in that family. Ergo, it was hardly for "political reasons", that those quotes were given. These quotes also appeared in most books about the Clintons, BTW. There were also claims that while at Yale, Bill copied Hillary's work, to hand in and/or that she would do some of his course work for him.

Not knowing the Clintons nor their friends ( and no, NOT "associates", but their old, long term friends, are the ones who were quoted and yes, in context )personally, I can only supply you with what those who knew them both said. I do have a friend, who does know some of the people in that group and they told her the same thing............back in 1991 and '92.

I knew President Nixon. My opinion of him and his intelligence has more to do with my personal contact with him, my observation of his actions in and out of political office, and his books, rather than the fact that he was a Republican.

Hillary is "more" intelligent than RONALD REAGAN was ? REALLY? And what facts would back up that absurd assertion ? Please do not be shy; put those facts up here, right now!

Ditto for the claim that she is also "smarter" than Palin!

Yes,Bill Clinton was indeed a Rhodes Scholar; however he didn't get there on his own merit and neither did he attend most of the lectures, nor even graduate from the program.

Oh good grief............ your screed about Jimmy Carter is just another hysteric, hyperbolic pool of garbage.

Almost "ALL" Senators are "intelligent" and ALL presidents have been as well? ROTFLMSOPIMP !

I won't waste bandwidth refuting those statements, but those statements prove just how little you know about anything; especially those people.

I now suspect that you have no idea what Romney did/claimed he did vis-a-vis the Olympics, which is why you are refusing to reply to my posts about that. You also have ignored what I posted about Romney and Bain. Whenever I post facts or ask you to factually engage in a discourse about those things, you have completely ignored to do so.

I haven't thought that Mitt Romney was much for decades. This is because I actually DO know what he has said and/or done. I also remember his father's stabs at running for president and Mitt is and shall continue to follow in his father's failed endeavors. Your assumption that I "hate" Romney because he "is standing in the way of Sarah Palin" is beyond absurd; not to mention specious !

Your abject lack of factual knowledge,combined with your hyper emotionalism, colors your posts to such a degree, that these things diminish any possible sense contained therein.