Sarah Palin didn't know Africa was a continent....

[Smidlee]

Call me naive, but I truly hope that the higher-ups in the government (senators, governors, presidents/vice presidents) know a little geography.

Don't bet on it. I remember a few years ago read something from a travel agenda just how stupid some of them were.

 

[luiz]

Because the only means by which someone could actually attribute such a statement to Obama's own ignorance is to pretty much purposely ignore any and all context as well as every bit of Obama's noted intelligence, background, education, thoughtfulness, insight, and just about everything else we know about the guy. Which is pretty much the province of disingenuous, intellectually dishonest hacks and idiots and I don't take kindly to dishonesty. Especially when its employed to further a political point.

The Palin rumored gaffe reaches the realm of possibility entirely because of context however. We know she's an idiot. She's proven herself an idiot nearly every time she was trotted out front of the real press.

You're just re-stating your "hack profession of faith". I don't know if Palin is an absolute idiot or not, probably not, but even idiots know that Africa is a continent. You know that she knows it too, it is stupid to argue otherwise.

That you manage to throw so many insults at Palin while covering Obama with the highest qualities just further reinforces your absolute lack of balance.

You're apparently not watching the same debates, because he handled himself quite well in all of them.

I thought both Obama and McCain were extremely poor debaters. I've seen better debaters in high school, this is not a joke or an insult, it is a statement of my honest opinion. They were both insecure and dodging of the real issues while repeating silly talking points.
Obama is in fact great when he is giving a speech, but the debates for me completely killed the "Obama is ultra-smart" myth. He is not an idiot, but is very far from brilliant as well.

Than you're getting your talking points from elsewhere (probably here), cause you're trotting out tired, old carbon copies of them. Guess that makes you a trickle down Limbaugh-ian. He says it, hacks here repeat it, than you join in the chorus.

Can you deny that Obama is quite prolific on very silly gaffes? The guy was virtually unheard of until just some time ago and he already produced quite a collection of gems. I mean, I don't seem to ever forget how many states my country has, or who liberated Auschwitz, or exagerate the number of deaths of a tornado several hundred times. Before you get even more angry at me, I am not calling him stupid or ignorant, just more to prone to gaffes than average. This does not compromise his ability to be president, but does entitle me to mock him.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you kidding me? This is her reaction? "Those guys were jerks"?

Well, to be fair, those guys were jerks.

 

[Simple Simon]

luiz,

you doubt that Palin does not know that Africa is a continent (inference on your part), because

even idiots know that Africa is a continent

Guess what: I have met apparent non-idiots not knowing even simpler things.

Example:
'Do you have the moon in Denmark, too?'
'Yeah, both of them, but the yellow one is always low on the horizon'
And she debated 20 mins with her boyfriend how the orbital mechanics should be......

btw, this girl had an MBA!



So I highly doubt that someone who thinks being able to see Siberia qualifies her for foreign politics in the White House is not also stupid enough not to know that Africa is not a nation state.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm sure she knew it was a continent. I'm just not convinced she didn't know it was a country.

 

[luiz]

luiz,

you doubt that Palin does not know that Africa is a continent (inference on your part), because


Guess what: I have met apparent non-idiots not knowing even simpler things.

Example:
'Do you have the moon in Denmark, too?'
'Yeah, both of them, but the yellow one is always low on the horizon'
And she debated 20 mins with her boyfriend how the orbital mechanics should be......

btw, this girl had an MBA!

I have never heard a more stupid comment in my life. I have talked with adults who couldn't read or write, with people who didn't know who the president is, or what the capital is. But I have never heard something like that, and I can not bring myself to believe that someone with superior education could ask something like "do you have the moon in Denmark?". That's just not possible for a human being with access to other human beings.

So I highly doubt that someone who thinks being able to see Siberia qualifies her for foreign politics in the White House is not also stupid enough not to know that Africa is not a nation state.

But does she actually think that or did she say that in a half-joking manner of saying she has more contact than most with foreign matters?

 

[azzaman333]

I have never heard a more stupid comment in my life. I have talked with adults who couldn't read or write, with people who didn't know who the president is, or what the capital is. But I have never heard something like that, and I can not bring myself to believe that someone with superior education could ask something like "do you have the moon in Denmark?". That's just not possible for a human being with access to other human beings.

People believe in all sorts of weird and wacky things.

Case in point; Religion.

 

[Simple Simon]

I can not bring myself to believe that someone with superior education could ask something like "do you have the moon in Denmark?". That's just not possible for a human being with access to other human beings.

I would have said the exact same thing. Until I was actually there when it happened![/quote]

She and her boyfriend (a third-grade football player) also asked: 'Do you have power, like, you know, for fridges... re-fri-ge-re-ders, you know? And cars?'

But does she actually think that or did she say that in a half-joking manner of saying she has more contact than most with foreign matters?

Ok, let's assume she said it as a joke (the newspaper answer shows it is highly unlikely, she is just plain stoopid).
a) horrible delivery
b) addressed at an audience that will most certainly not get it
c) no follow-up that indicated it was a joke the reporter didn't catch.

all in all, if you WANT to joke around at such an occasion, you must be a total moron to do it the way she did. Oops!

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

You're just re-stating your "hack profession of faith". I don't know if Palin is an absolute idiot or not, probably not, but even idiots know that Africa is a continent. You know that she knows it too, it is stupid to argue otherwise.

That you manage to throw so many insults at Palin while covering Obama with the highest qualities just further reinforces your absolute lack of balance.

And here you commit the same fallacy that the mainstream media continually trips itself over; that because there are two sides, you must treat them equally, give them an equal hearing, and pretend that there is a false equivalence between them that simply doesn't exist. Balance isn't truth. It isn't reality. Trying to show a balance where none exists is just as fraudulent as outright lying.

The fact is, just about every ounce of information we have on Palin says stupid. I've already rehashed many of them. But Obama graduated from Harvard Magna Cum Laude, was the editor of the Harvard Law review, has spoken extensively with knowledge and insights on countless subjects in hundreds upon hundreds of interviews. His approach to just about any subject is very thoughtful and analytical. If you want to criticize him for perhaps being too tentative or at a stretch, not having the courage of his convictions, fair enough. But to say he's not intelligent, that he can't think on his feet, to suggest that he can't talk without a teleprompter; utter baseless slander unfit to print. Right wing hack talking points with no basis in reality.

I thought both Obama and McCain were extremely poor debaters. I've seen better debaters in high school, this is not a joke or an insult, it is a statement of my honest opinion. They were both insecure and dodging of the real issues while repeating silly talking points.
Obama is in fact great when he is giving a speech, but the debates for me completely killed the "Obama is ultra-smart" myth. He is not an idiot, but is very far from brilliant as well.

Read some of his interviews. Perhaps even his books. The man is brilliant. On a Clinton or Nixon level. No he didn't work well in the debate format when he first started, but he learned quickly at it and handled himself quite well in the later Democratic and certainly the general election ones.

Can you deny that Obama is quite prolific on very silly gaffes? The guy was virtually unheard of until just some time ago and he already produced quite a collection of gems. I mean, I don't seem to ever forget how many states my country has, or who liberated Auschwitz, or exagerate the number of deaths of a tornado several hundred times. Before you get even more angry at me, I am not calling him stupid or ignorant, just more to prone to gaffes than average. This does not compromise his ability to be president, but does entitle me to mock him.

Actually, in the grand scheme of things, not really. Obama had referred to his uncle liberating Buchenwald and more general references to concentration camps dozens of times before and since. Of course when most American's think concentration camps, the first name that comes to mind is Auschwitz. It is the most infamous by far. And that familiarity likely caught him up and helped cause the slip. When you're on the stump saying much the same stuff day in and day out, not to mention countless interviews doing much the same, sometimes the tongue slips.

57 instead of 50. That happens. Even calling these gaffes is a stretch. I usually reserve that for a statement that is more than a mere slip, one that displays an actual, solid ignorance of reality, a pathetic grasp of subject matter or even of the english language, not something that amounts to referring to a guy named Joe as John or something of that sort.

What I suspect happened is this. The right got a bit pissed off with all the criticism of Bushism's and the left challenging his intelligence. (and lets be honest, the guy is pretty challenged) So they looked for anything approaching a verbal misstep from Obama and blew it a thousand times out of proportion just so they can say 'hey, your guy ain't that bright either'. It is again a false equivalence foisted upon us as a conscious fraud from the right...unless you're really telling me that Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald is on par with 'Fool me twice, I won't be fooled again/Is our children learning/or Palin's own Ms. Teen USA South Carolina audition'.

 

[luiz]

And here you commit the same fallacy that the mainstream media continually trips itself over; that because there are two sides, you must treat them equally, give them an equal hearing, and pretend that there is a false equivalence between them that simply doesn't exist. Balance isn't truth. It isn't reality. Trying to show a balance where none exists is just as fraudulent as outright lying.

The fact is, just about every ounce of information we have on Palin says stupid. I've already rehashed many of them. But Obama graduated from Harvard Magna Cum Laude, was the editor of the Harvard Law review, has spoken extensively with knowledge and insights on countless subjects in hundreds upon hundreds of interviews. His approach to just about any subject is very thoughtful and analytical. If you want to criticize him for perhaps being too tentative or at a stretch, not having the courage of his convictions, fair enough. But to say he's not intelligent, that he can't think on his feet, to suggest that he can't talk without a teleprompter; utter baseless slander unfit to print. Right wing hack talking points with no basis in reality.

I am not saying that there exists a perfect balance. Obama is more educated than Palin. But for you it's very black and white. Obama is "brilliant", "insightful", "thoughtful" and Palin is "stupid" and worse. You jumped at a very thin possibility that Palin may have displayed ignorance on subject, but you refuse to even consider Obama's slips as gaffes. You're not going for the truth, you are distorting everything though perhaps you don't realize it.

Read some of his interviews. Perhaps even his books. The man is brilliant. On a Clinton or Nixon level. No he didn't work well in the debate format when he first started, but he learned quickly at it and handled himself quite well in the later Democratic and certainly the general election ones.

I thought his debates on the generals sucked as well, any mayor candidate in Brazil would destroy him, as would Bill Clinton. In fact if you dig up the threads about the debates of the generals here, you will notice that nobody, including the democrats, was particularly impressed with his debating skills. Let's not re-write history that quickly, the man is simply not a good debater.
I have read many interviews, and while obviously he is educated (as are countless people), there is hardly anything exceptional going on there.

Actually, in the grand scheme of things, not really. Obama had referred to his uncle liberating Buchenwald and more general references to concentration camps dozens of times before and since. Of course when most American's think concentration camps, the first name that comes to mind is Auschwitz. It is the most infamous by far. And that familiarity likely caught him up and helped cause the slip. When you're on the stump saying much the same stuff day in and day out, not to mention countless interviews doing much the same, sometimes the tongue slips.

Yeah, that's called a gaffe. And really, Obama seems to incur in them more often than most. When did Bill Clinton said something like that?

57 instead of 50. That happens.

Maybe to Bush.

Even calling these gaffes is a stretch. I usually reserve that for a statement that is more than a mere slip, one that displays an actual, solid ignorance of reality, a pathetic grasp of subject matter or even of the english language, not something that amounts to referring to a guy named Joe as John or something of that sort.

No, a gaffe may be something very minor that doesn't even involve any ignorace. It may be just an inapropriate comment.

But let's not pretend that Obama is not ignorant about anything. What about when he suggested to use the translators that are in Iraq in Afghanistan? That fits very well the "ignorant american" George Bush stereotype.

What I suspect happened is this. The right got a bit pissed off with all the criticism of Bushism's and the left challenging his intelligence. (and lets be honest, the guy is pretty challenged) So they looked for anything approaching a verbal misstep from Obama and blew it a thousand times out of proportion just so they can say 'hey, your guy ain't that bright either'. It is again a false equivalence foisted upon us as a conscious fraud from the right...unless you're really telling me that Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald is on par with 'Fool me twice, I won't be fooled again/Is our children learning/or Palin's own Ms. Teen USA South Carolina audition'.

I think the tornado one is on pair with anything Bush ever said. And Palin is obviously prone to gaffes as well, this was reported. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama commits gaffes more often than expected in a professional politician. Again, I am not going for "equivalence". Bill Clinton was not equivalent to Bush in terms of gaffes, not by long shot. Obama... time will tell.

 

[Kerozine]

US politics sure is ugly..

 

[Margim]

Wouldn't surprise me about Palin, considering the amount of things I've heard regarding Australia from Americans...

ie
Kangaroo in every street.
We are that country that makes chocolates, somewhere near Germany (what the?)
There's a bridge connecting us to New Zealand

In other words, nothing would surprise me.

 

[GoodGame]

So is the bottom line there needs to be a written exam before a VP is allowed in the main election?

 

[Bill3000]

'Do you have the moon in Denmark, too?'
'Yeah, both of them, but the yellow one is always low on the horizon'
And she debated 20 mins with her boyfriend how the orbital mechanics should be......

btw, this girl had an MBA!

Oh, that explains it.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

I am not saying that there exists a perfect balance. Obama is more educated than Palin. But for you it's very black and white. Obama is "brilliant", "insightful", "thoughtful" and Palin is "stupid" and worse. You jumped at a very thin possibility that Palin may have displayed ignorance on subject, but you refuse to even consider Obama's slips as gaffes. You're not going for the truth, you are distorting everything though perhaps you don't realize it.

There really is only one possibility; Sarah Palin is an imbecile. But I'll give you a shot. Tell me why she's smart. I'd love to hear this.

I thought his debates on the generals sucked as well, any mayor candidate in Brazil would destroy him, as would Bill Clinton. In fact if you dig up the threads about the debates of the generals here, you will notice that nobody, including the democrats, was particularly impressed with his debating skills.

And you may or may not have noticed, I gave the first debate to McCain. But apparently the voters didn't. They like their debaters being kind and non-condescending, I put a higher premium on being the smarter guy int he room and controlling the exchange. i thought Obama agreed with McCain far too much and seemed unable to get his voice heard when he wanted to interject while McCain had no such reverse problem. But the electorate saw it differently. And I saw him winning the second two debates handily.

I personally think he possesses the intellect of a Bill Clinton. And don't get me wrong, Bill Clinton, while I am not a big fan, was a brilliant man. I don't think that he possesses the confidence and self-assuredeness yet of a B. Clinton. I think he is learning it. I see many of the things that I liked in Clinton in Obama. The desire to walk into a room and engage people in the hopes that they see things your way, and if not, at the very least that they understand where you're coming from. Obama will seek out real people opposed to him and try to sway them. He'll try to find out why he hasn't yet earned the trust, respect, and the vote of the people in that room. That was perhaps the best thing about Clinton and I see it reflected in Obama.

But Obama does that without the arrogance or presumptuousness of Clinton. He tries to achieve that without all of the notable personal flaws of Clinton. Bill Clinton's greatest problem is that he could have been great. He could have been a transformational presidency of the likes of FDR, Reagan and others...but he chose not to be. Yes, some of that choosing was the republicans leading a witch hunt through his second term, but he should have known better, known that they would've been that petty, and he should've done better. Bill Clinton was a waste of potential. Obama is that kind of potential ratcheted up a few notches giving the pressing nature of the times...and pardon me if I'm willing to give him a shot.

Let's not re-write history that quickly, the man is simply not a good debater. I have read many interviews, and while obviously he is educated (as are countless people), there is hardly anything exceptional going on there.

Make your own definitions of exceptional at your leisure. I'll take the most brilliant and insightful leader since Clinton (without his personal issues and perhaps POTENTIALLY even greater than Clinton himself) in a hearbeat. Perhaps its the victory of low expectations, but after 8 years of a joke Presidency and a joke leadership that absolutely didn't come close to average, let alone exceptional, I'll take what I can get.

But let's not pretend that Obama is not ignorant about anything. What about when he suggested to use the translators that are in Iraq in Afghanistan? That fits very well the "ignorant american" George Bush stereotype.

It is something the hard lefties on my usual board gave him crap for. (The Nader types). It was an example of not a mere slip of the tongue, but actual ignorance on display. Ignorance that could be remedied of course, not terribly harmful ignorance, but ignorance nonetheless. But this was one of a VERY FEW real examples of it. And just because you put it in the same category as 50 states vs. 58 and repeat it continually doesn't mean it is remotely the same thing. I am more than willing to accept this for the potentially troubling sign that it is. I am not willing to accept other, barely relevant crap heaped on the same.

This is what I would call a gaffe, under the definition i gave. I can't really think of many others. And if that's the worse that happens during a campaign trail, I'll take it. It is the kind of think that might make me pause and look closer at what the person was saying about foreign policy, Iraq, and other international issues generally. And I did and I have been looking. I really haven't found much for concern.

My main concern with Obama vs. McCain is that I believe McCain's instinctive, belligerent approach would do better than Obama's good faith and analytical nature with Russia. While I think Obama's nature, lack of baggage, and intentions might serve better in Iran and Venezuela, I don't believe for a second that Russia has any interest whatsoever in negotiation. They are thugs, pure and simple, who do not have the slightest understanding of good faith. Someone who can beat them back at that level would clearly be desirable. And how Obama handles Russia I think will be one of the greatest early tests of his Presidency.

There are nations in this world who are generally horrified by the arbitrary abuse and the belligerent behavior of this present administration. There are also those who don't much care either way and would love to pull the same crap (or worse) themselves. There are nations that can and should be negotiated with and ones who view negotiation as weakness to be exploited. The political calculations I observed from Obama this election showed me that he knew the difference.

Russia is of course my main worry. i think either McCain or OBama would be a wash on China or North Korea. Pakistan is too up in the air til I get a better idea of their leadership. But of the rest...the only foreign policy component that worries me on Obama is Russia. McCain's initial reaction on Georgia was right. That doesn't mean I favor his approach because he's made countless impulsive choices that were flat out wrong (Palin anyone). But I think he understands what Russia is and what they represent and will not be fooled by any assurances or thrust under any delusions.

Obama...we'll see.

 

[MobBoss]

There really is only one possibility; Sarah Palin is an imbecile. But I'll give you a shot. Tell me why she's smart. I'd love to hear this.

Why is everyone in your world either (a) smart...or (b) an imbecile?

I guess its from your own issues in regard to those that dont agree with you.

Give it a break already.

I personally think he possesses the intellect of a Bill Clinton.

Uhh...thats not exactly something to brag about really.

And don't get me wrong, Bill Clinton, while I am not a big fan, was a brilliant man.

Charismatic? Yes. Brilliant? No.

Bill Clinton was a waste of potential.

I will agree to this....

Make your own definitions of exceptional at your leisure. I'll take the most brilliant and insightful leader since Clinton (without his personal issues and perhaps POTENTIALLY even greater than Clinton himself) in a hearbeat.

I will one up you here. Obama is probably the smartest guy to hold the office since Wilson. Clinton wasnt insightful...if he were, he would have avoided his impeachment.

My main concern with Obama vs. McCain is that I believe McCain's instinctive, belligerent approach would do better than Obama's good faith and analytical nature with Russia. While I think Obama's nature, lack of baggage, and intentions might serve better in Iran and Venezuela, I don't believe for a second that Russia has any interest whatsoever in negotiation. They are thugs, pure and simple, who do not have the slightest understanding of good faith.

And Hugo Chavez, and the whackjob from Iran....do? Wow.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Why is everyone in your world either (a) smart...or (b) an imbecile?

I guess its from your own issues in regard to those that dont agree with you.

Give it a break already.

Nice dodge, now tell me why she's smart. If you don't believe she is, say so and than tell me why someone 'not smart' should be qualified for the highest office in the land.

Uhh...thats not exactly something to brag about really.

Bill Clinton was an incredibly intelligent President, one of the three most brilliant of this century. (Woodrow Wilson, Clinton, Nixon.) Unless you think Rhodes scholar's are run of the mill.

I will one up you here. Obama is probably the smartest guy to hold the office since Wilson. Clinton wasnt insightful...if he were, he would have avoided his impeachment.

I will grant you this to an extent. Clinton was smart, but grossly overestimated himself. He had a supreme confidence in his own ability, he was a details orientated micromanager, a competent policy wonk on just about every subject, but much of that led to some of his major failings; he didn't have much confidence in people other than himself and thus he didn't delegate well. He didn't possess much insight into his own flaws and wasn't much for self-reflection (quite the opposite of Obama in this regard, who perhaps examines his own arguments, thoughts and motivations a bit too much).

As for the impeachment, yes he should have known better. But that doesn't mean the whole thing wasn't a partisan political farce to begin with.

And Hugo Chavez, and the whackjob from Iran....do? Wow.

Chavez is ineffectual. He is not a threat. Maybe he will become more compliant by feeling that he's getting a seat at the big kids table and maybe he won't. Doesn't really matter. Nothing we could give him will be that significant and if we get significant concessions, eased tensions, and cooperation as a result, all the merrier.

As for Iran, they are a threat. But they are also a nation with a deep rooted reform sentiment begging to come out. All the belligerence and axis of evil crap strangled that in the crib and ushered in a rally around the flag siege mentality, but that doesn't mean its gone. They have a young population and a new face to American foreign policy could pay huge dividends. They are also not a nation we can deal with alone and Obama will be much more able to secure European cooperation in whatever endeavors we choose to pursue in that region.

Also, the big kids table thing could have an effect there as well. These are both nations that in the grand scheme of things are an afterthought for us unless they're pissing us off and they know it. Being treated as equals (or at least the reasonable perception of such) can go a long way and costs nothing. Russia's been at that table for decades and still operates with a zero sum, Cold War mentality. Good intentions mean crap to them. Iran and Venezuela? It could mean alot. And if it doesn't, again, it costs us nothing.

Obama generally has an immense opportunity on the global stage. He is popular even with the regimes who are now our enemies. He has clout with allies and others that we haven't seen since the first days after 9-11. He has the ability to turn this into tangible progress in a number of regions.

 

[MobBoss]

Nice dodge, now tell me why she's smart.

Its not a dodge. 'Smart' is a relative term. In comparison to what might I ask? Lots of people out there that never made it through college. She was apparently smart enough to get a journalism degree. I think thats 'smart' enough.

If you don't believe she is, say so and than tell me why someone 'not smart' should be qualified for the highest office in the land.

On the contrary, I think she is indeed smart. One doesnt get to be elected governor of a state by being an idiot/imbecile. You have your opinion here, but your opinion is simply wrong.

Bill Clinton was an incredibly intelligent President, one of the three most brilliant of this century. (Woodrow Wilson, Clinton, Nixon.) Unless you think Rhodes scholar's are run of the mill.

Yeah, apparently he was smart enough to smoke pot at Oxford...but not inhale it. Clinton had plenty of intelligence, but not much common sense. If he had more common sense, he would have had far less scandals over the course of his career.

As for the impeachment, yes he should have known better. But that doesn't mean the whole thing wasn't a partisan political farce to begin with.

It wasnt partisan...there were a good deal of democrats not very happy with him either.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Its not a dodge. 'Smart' is a relative term. In comparison to what might I ask? Lots of people out there that never made it through college. She was apparently smart enough to get a journalism degree. I think thats 'smart' enough.

We're not comparing her to alot of people. We talking 'of the quality to run this country'. You don't trot out a journalism degree as a qualification when it took her 5 schools to finally get it, none of them remotely prestigious.

Why do you think she's smart. In concrete terms. No pointing to the Alaskan electorate or some other body. Something in her background, some things she's written, things she's said...something, anything that leads you to the conclusion that she is smart. And if you don't believe she is, again, why should a 'not smart' person be running this country?

On the contrary, I think she is indeed smart. One doesnt get to be elected governor of a state by being an idiot/imbecile. You have your opinion here, but your opinion is simply wrong.

Apparently convicted felons get elected in that state, so pardon me if I don't put much stock in the discerning scrutiny of Alaskans.

Yeah, apparently he was smart enough to smoke pot at Oxford...but not inhale it. Clinton had plenty of intelligence, but not much common sense. If he had more common sense, he would have had far less scandals over the course of his career.

I don't see what smoking pot has to do with anything. Hell, i'd be curious about people who didn't try random crap in college. Clinton had intelligence. Despite his failings that I mentioned, he was an extremely competent political animal, though I'm not sure what you're referring to as common sense. If its keeping the dick in the pants, yeah, he wasn't terribly good at that. Alot of powerful men see it as their right to screw around. Typically I wouldn't begrudge them that, but I know this nation is a bit uptight and Republicans especially like turning personal indiscretions into national scandal when its someone from the donkey side. All irrelevant. All questions that really didn't need to be asked and shouldn't have been. Personally i don't care if my President molests dogs and puts it on Youtube, so long as he governs well.

It wasnt partisan...there were a good deal of democrats not very happy with him either.

They were angry because they knew that he knew that Republicans were bottom feeding scum who would look for any excuse and he gave them one.

 

[Evil Bunny]

To be fair, Bush didn't know Africa was a continent before he took office. He turned out alright, right?