- Bang

Hrm. I don’t think oral arguments are the same thing as briefings. I dont think they’re learning that much at argument.

“reckless charges.”

Whats so ‘reckless’?

Excellent link. Loyalty, is there any virtue more important? Loyalty to truth, loyalty to country, loyalty to family, loyalty to comrades in arms, loyalty to oneself. Nothing is more important, and loyalty is something that is almost completely lacking in liberals/leftists/and Democrats. They are all opportunistic, disloyal, self centered backstabbers, who’d sell their own mothers into sexual slavery if they thought it’d get them elected. The amount of disgust I feel for these traitorous prima donnas is immeasurable.

Are you saying that Clarence Thomas is incurious also because he asks less questions during a session? Just because a liberal states a behavior is “x” because that is what their interpretation is doesn’t make it so. In fact, it’s usually another reckless irrelevant charge. Why do you like to perpetuate those charges.

Andrew wrote, “Firstly it was gore’s point. ” In response to Thomas Sowell’s point you made an irrelevant and separate charge that liberals make due to their interpretation of “x” behavior. I charge that Andrew is irrelevant and reckless. There. Tit for tat. There are plenty of things I disagree with Bush on but I don’t understand your propensity to make reckless charges.

Andrew wrote, “he gave some examples” Yep. He gave some examples as to why he thought “x” behavior was the accusation he was spouting. Let me give some examples as to why Gore’s a liar… eh. Never mind. You believe him and you lie so what’s the point.

But that’s not what I’m talking about. I suppose it is good for the president to know what the MSM is presenting, and if he was curious about that, he’d either read it or get briefed on it.

But its not just about being briefed. Its about being an active participant in briefings. Its about being curious about policy, about what are good and bad policies. About what the issues are. Google “Bush tribal sovereignty” and you’ll see an example of what that incuriousity results in.

“So, I disagree with your reckless (why do you like to do that) charge. ”

Firstly it was gore’s point. I made that clear. No need to call it my charge, as you can read. Also I don’t think he made it recklessly — as in knowingly running a risk of being untrue — he gave some examples

Yeah. Policy as defined as what the newspapers write….

Why would Bush have to read the newspapers when he is briefed much more quickly by his own staff on what the relevant issues of the day are? It would WASTE the president’s time to read the Times or WashPo. In fact, I’d ask the President to resign if I knew he was spending his work day reading those rags. He would be DUMBER and more incurious to read those rags.

So, I disagree with your reckless (why do you like to do that) charge.

And.. Why do you make reckless irresponsible charges?

Know as much about policy. Once president. I see my syntax was ambiguous.

I have the day off, and was planning to clean up the yard, but that #$%@&* Zarkawi had to go and die. Now I can’t stop reading the blogs. Help!

Neither did I. I was talking about the interesting point that Gore made. And that point was that its more accurate to say that Bush is intelligent but incurious, rather than to say he is not intelligent. Thats not off subject. Thats on the subject of dubya’s intelligence, and how its perceived.

“Incurious as defined by lefties as “not watching the polls like Slick Wille did”. ”

I think its incurious as in not reading as much or knowing as much or being as attuned to policy as clinton. As in not being a nerd like Gore.

Yes. Incurious as defined by lefties as “not watching the polls like Slick Wille did”. He continues to do what he believes is right instead of cutting and running like 99% of lawmakers voted against a few months ago. How incurious…..