Uh-oh. Here's a worry.

>>James O'Neil we truthers seem to be growing expodentially.<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12013#206529

That word... I've seen it somewhere before...

Ah yes, here it is:

>>Antiseptic, Thanks for picking me up on the spelling error. The word I was thinking of was expodential...<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11291#191221

Oh dear.

Can it be true that the arch-9/11-Truther and the arch-Creationist-Truther are in fact one and the same individual?

Has anyone ever seen Arjay and Dan S de Merengue in the same room?

Thought not.

It would certainly explain a great deal.

Now that's what I call a conspiracy...

Thanks for the feedback Poirot, it clarifies your approach.

I would not take too much notice of the lefties in relation to Bush. They are generally deluded, or liars, or both.

Comments by his students on the Professor, who is said, in the article to which you give the site, to have maligned Bush, while generally complimentary, make it clear that he is a lefty, or as they say in the States, a “liberal”.

One student broke ranks and said “What's challenging about this class is sitting through his boring lectures, reading his poorly written text (everything you read in this class is bias and written by the professor) and tolerating his hate for the U.S. Oh, and the fact that he uses the classroom as a political forum is disgusting as well. Not an intellectually stimulating class.”

Hatred of the US easily translates into hatred of Bush, or, for that matter, love of Obama.

My comment was meant to convey that Bush did what he saw as necessary to win the election. The US seems to want dumb Presidents, so that is what he gave them. He only just beat Gore, so they must like insane Presidents as well, but marginally prefer dumb ones.

Going on Bush’s achievements, rather than his presentation, I would not class him as dumb.

Going on the lefty lies about him, is another matter. It was nice to see Dan Rather end his own career, as a left wing liar, and TV news anchor man of CNN, by presenting a forged document to the public in an attempt to discredit Bush.

I follow my instincts on these things. Sorting out facts becomes a mammoth task, and my intuition rarely lets me down.

Best wishes.

Leo, Leo, Leo,

So, in your opinion, anyone who perceived Georgie to be a tad dimmer they they would expect of their average president, must be a liar.
(absolutely, fair enough - I can see your logic there)

I don't think the people of the U.S. want their presidents to be dumb - even if he does provide free entertainment.

What achievements?....unless you count enriching armaments manufactures and the various American corporations benefitting from all the taxpayer dollars flowing to the contractors in Iraq.

I suppose, however, that one has to give credit where it's due - profits were forthcoming from both ends of the Iraqi operation - in the knocking it down - and in the building it back up.... (a stroke of genius, no doubt)

Anyway, Bush wasn't running the show - the rest of "em were. He was like one of those dummies that ventriloquists sit on their laps - and you didn't have to be a "leftie" to ascertain that.

Dear poirot,

Perhaps what Leo's trying to say is that people "misunderestimated"
George W.?

Rational debate it seems is incapable of such notions.Ad hominem is the best that the mass debater can muster.Not one word of logic or science.I suggest you study very carefully this site. http://www.ae911truth.org/

When you have assimilated the science,irrational debater, then we can enter into logical discourse,

Arjay - I have been to that site and as an educated person, very quickly ascertained it was not worth wasting my time on. Facts interest me, even some theories I will willingly entertain and pursue. However, the fanciful rantings contained on that site do not qualify. I find it sad, genuinely sad, that people will promote such thoughts. What their motivation is, I can only imagine.