Bush is an idiot

[/B]

Agreed. I didn't say otherwise. That's how they worded it in our own media, that she accomplished what the soldiers haven't. I would imagine they meant since toppling Saddam and they should have said the US and allies, if they were going to say anything at all. But that is how our own media reported the event, not me my friend. ;-)

Well...that explains it then...btw...I saw some of the girl's performance on TV, Taylor Hicks runs rings around her!

Well...that explains it then...btw...I saw some of the girl's performance on TV, Taylor Hicks runs rings around her!

Gotta admit though, she's better than Sanjaya.

Gotta admit though, she's better than Sanjaya.

...Gem of the Day!!!!

A few things - and forgive me, I rarely have time to post on these boards, but the late meeting in Destin led me to water and the mindnumbingly vapid discourse made me drink. I'm not quite narcissistic enough to read the whole thing, so I'll only address a few things.

I love this gem - "And for all of those people who voted a second time for Bush and NOW feel extreme regret (and they exist in droves...) I say 'Shame on you because all the signs of gross and criminal incompetence and arrogance were there and wide open for all to see after 4 years!!'"

You know who he was running against, right? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't Lady Thatcher.

How was Bush awarded the Presidency? Thanks and I'll hang up and listen.

Chickpea, sorry to pick on you here, but can you give me a ballpark number of acceptable losses for a war? It always seems that the folks who quote Jefferson on the tree of liberty and the blood of the tyrants forget that he mentions patriots as well, and tyrants don't always include fellow countrymen and leaders. Not you, just saying.

"My father has always said that what the middle east (sic) desperately needs is a Nelson Mandela or a Ghandi (sic)" - We can send them Jimmy Carter. He likes taking poorly rooted cheap shots at the administration and the west as much as the former and his policies always kept people in squalor, like the latter. Win-win.

"We are a global community." That's a cute T-shirt and a swell Michael Jackson song, but it's nowhere near the truth.

"How do you go from a multi-billion surplus to a multi-million dollar deficit that fast" - You see, a surplus is when the government takes too much from you without paying interest. A deficit is when they don't take enough and they have to pay interest on the difference. You'd think that it would keep spending down, but you'd think wrong. Regardless, a deficit is the lesser of the three evils, with the third the worst yet - a balanced budget. That's when the government keeps increasing taxes until they get what they need - aka pay as you go. Also, Richards was as yellow dog as they come, no matter what she said.

"...it has nothing whatsoever to do with being a republican or a democrat - in fact it is amazing to me that so few republicans are angry with him given how he has pretty much violated the very precepts of his party such as fiscal responsibility, conservative spending and small government!" - Actually it does. When democrats don't get their way via will of the people, they appoint judges to do it for them, in what we know as a "living Constitution". At least the GOP lets the people decide. And since the undecided voter is more overblown than the stupid Kennedy conspiracies, voters usually favor small c-conservative candidates and policies. And Bush was elected by conservatives in spite of his views on fiscal responsibility, conservative spending and small government, not because of them. We all knew what we were getting in bed with, but it meant lower taxes, judicial reform and a global backbone. He was a "Compassionate Conservative", which means he spends like a sailor at port.

"Only immediate consolation is that Bush is such a lame duck right now that he is hopefully absolutely powerless." - regardless of your political views, that is really, really wrong no matter if the GOP is in power, the dems or the Whigs. I hope I don't need to explain why, but if I do, please pipe up.

"I naively never thought he would act so unilaterally, without thought or consideration of all he would bring about even as EVERY single INTELLIGENT agency was telling him his post war plans were flawed and ill considered." - This is a clich?, I know, but I'd rather not ask the rest of the world for their opinion when it involves protecting this country's interests. And the second half of your statement is plain old not true.

McCain is as crazy as a sh*thouse rat - always has been.

And quickly - I'd much, much rather the rest of the world be pissed off at us when we are announcing our presence with authority than feel sorry for us because we just got sucker punched in the groin. On the karaoke chick, "she has accomplished what they claim the American Soldiers haven't been able to" - No, if it were not for American soldiers, she wouldn't have been able to perform in the first place. How quickly we forget the purple thumb, even if the savages can't stop killing one another right now. Yes, there were a ton of mistakes made in this war, and it was much more of a hornets' nest than we thought it would be, but you might as well whine to Thad Matta that he wasn't drilling his players enough on practicing their three pointers. I know that Risk is a really fun board game, and I'm sure you are all would be really, really good world leaders, but real war and real foreign policy is a little more complicated with a lot more unforeseen happenstances than a piece of cardboard.

It will probably be a few days before I can respond to the comments that I'm an idiot too, so please be patient and I'll try to patronize all of you when I have the time.

Ohhh, now this should be good!

6th Gen - you bring up a few points, but none of them worthy of the time it took to read them. :roll: good god, what a waste of board space.

Agree, Tootsie, where is that "ignore" button....:!:

6thGen, You have some valid points, but the whole of this discussion would be moot had we heeded Carter and stopped importing oil. I seem to remember the warning, say, 1978? I favor negotiation over unilateral war always. Intellectuals and those that have experienced war try to find the middle. Lightweights and panderers are always quick to show everyone they're the alpha male or badass. The problem is that you have to live with your mistakes. We sure are in the middle of one hell of a mistake, and the stupidity is on full display. Now GW and Congress are going to wrestle over money, and the military is going to be caught in the middle. Any move we make will cost us, and I hope we learn this time the hard way. We need to focus on the long term solution, an America free of oil as its primary energy source.

6thGen, You have some valid points, but the whole of this discussion would be moot had we heeded Carter and stopped importing oil. I seem to remember the warning, say, 1978? I favor negotiation over unilateral war always. Intellectuals and those that have experienced war try to find the middle. Lightweights and panderers are always quick to show everyone they're the alpha male or badass. The problem is that you have to live with your mistakes. We sure are in the middle of one hell of a mistake, and the stupidity is on full display. Now GW and Congress are going to wrestle over money, and the military is going to be caught in the middle. Any move we make will cost us, and I hope we learn this time the hard way. We need to focus on the long term solution, an America free of oil as its primary energy source.

Elaborate, please.

Elaborate, please.

what I understand from Bob's statement is that it is going to be very costly to extricate ourselves from this situation (war) no matter what or how we do it. and not just monetarily.

Skunk - you said we must stay and be victorious. what do you think its going to cost us (money, sacrifice, respectability, etc) and what will be the definition of victory?

Whether we stay or leave, the outcome is grim. Iraq will not be as it once was, a nation held together by a strongman ala Mubarak or Mussharaf or Assad. In other words, a typical middle eastern government. Now, we've set the stage for a ruthless Shia theocracy supported by the majority of Iraqis and Iran. Democracy is tough to swallow when your enemies are winning the votes... Hamas in Palestine is a perfect example. We are going to learn the hard way, because cheap oil is gone. By learning the hard way, I mean spendable dollars to buy oil in all its forms. The play here was the same as the first Gulf War....oil and who controls it's distribution. The higher oil goes, the faster we will shift away from it and those who pump it from the earth.

what I understand from Bob's statement is that it is going to be very costly to extricate ourselves from this situation (war) no matter what or how we do it. and not just monetarily.

Skunk - you said we must stay and be victorious. what do you think its going to cost us (money, sacrifice, respectability, etc) and what will be the definition of victory?

I have no idea what the cost in treasure or blood will be, but I assure you, if we are forced to sulk away from a direct confrontation in the middle east, it will give pleasure we can't even imagine to the terrorists who wish nothing but harm to us and our way of life. Not just the United States, but sane Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and those who choose to not participate in religion all over the world;you know, the type of people that make life worth living. Think about that. Victory is establishing a nidus of stability in the region to serve as a safe haven to attack the radical Islamic cancer. We have a long way to go, but failure simply isn't an option.

Bob, I think you are wrong in thinking there is a huge petroconspiracy behind the war, but appreciate your answer. The sooner we are fossil fuel independent, the better.

30A, There's no conspiracy going on here. Oil is king, and isn't that rather apparent? There is no link between offing Saddam via lynching and terrorism. Hussein was one of the most pro-western despots in the region[see photo of Rummy shaking hands]. Make a pledge to yourself today to stop believing the neo-con talking points playbook from 2004. It's not relevant, and even Rove knows it. Want total world chaos tommorrow? Go take out General/President Musharraf in order to find Bin Laden's hangout. You'll have an instant Islamist government replete with nuclear weapons. Keep invading and bombing your way to anarchy or find a better way to heat your home. The USS Nimitz and 6,000 sailors are heading to the Persian Gulf now because of what, terrorism or oil market stability? What's your wild guess?

30A, There's no conspiracy going on here. Oil is king, and isn't that rather apparent? There is no link between offing Saddam via lynching and terrorism. Hussein was one of the most pro-western despots in the region[see photo of Rummy shaking hands]. Make a pledge to yourself today to stop believing the neo-con talking points playbook from 2004. It's not relevant, and even Rove knows it. Want total world chaos tommorrow? Go take out General/President Musharraf in order to find Bin Laden's hangout. You'll have an instant Islamist government replete with nuclear weapons. Keep invading and bombing your way to anarchy or find a better way to heat your home. The USS Nimitz and 6,000 sailors are heading to the Persian Gulf now because of what, terrorism or oil market stability? What's your wild guess?

Uggh, God, how many times do we need to hash out what Saddam had to do with terrorism...No, he had nothing to do with 9/11, but I bet the Kurds he gassed, men murdered in front of their wives (after said wives were raped) and dead Kuwaitis might just think he was a terrorist. So he is gone, good riddance to the thug.

As far as Musharraf, have no fear, the morons at ABC news are chomping at the bit to shine a bright light on US support of Pakistani anti-Iranian operations. Standard operating procedure in times of war, usually kept quiet unless you want to embarrass the hell out of the President. That might not go over well with the Pakistanis, but maybe that is just me. I wonder if ABC considered the effect it might have on the British sailors...you can go get in on the cutting edge of this new 'scandal' at ABC news right now. There is also a video on the improving conditions in Baghdad thanks to 'the surge', but you have to be a premium member and pay $5 a month to see it. Go figure.

Why are you so obsessed with Rove, anyway (loaded question);-)

Rove,Cheney, and Rumsfeld have had undue influence in the limited space that is GW's brain. Musharraf is a strongman, not a President, any more than Saddam was. If you want to line up all the world leaders that merit removal because of atrocities, the list would be longer than this thread. Put some 19th century U.S. Presidents on the list while your at it. Gassing the Kurds, as callous as this sounds, is not,cause enough for this war or we would be spread out all over Africa, fighting Russia over Chechnya, and bombing N.Korea, parts of S.E. Asia, and China simultaneously for endless human rights abuses. The democracy/WMD/terrorism/past atrocities theories for war were all put forth by Bush's three rather now-quiet amigos. The chaos we now have actually strengthens Iran.

A few things - and forgive me, I rarely have time to post on these boards, but the late meeting in Destin led me to water and the mindnumbingly vapid discourse made me drink. I'm not quite narcissistic enough to read the whole thing, so I'll only address a few things.

I love this gem - "And for all of those people who voted a second time for Bush and NOW feel extreme regret (and they exist in droves...) I say 'Shame on you because all the signs of gross and criminal incompetence and arrogance were there and wide open for all to see after 4 years!!'"

You know who he was running against, right? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't Lady Thatcher.

How was Bush awarded the Presidency? Thanks and I'll hang up and listen.

Chickpea, sorry to pick on you here, but can you give me a ballpark number of acceptable losses for a war? It always seems that the folks who quote Jefferson on the tree of liberty and the blood of the tyrants forget that he mentions patriots as well, and tyrants don't always include fellow countrymen and leaders. Not you, just saying.

"My father has always said that what the middle east (sic) desperately needs is a Nelson Mandela or a Ghandi (sic)" - We can send them Jimmy Carter. He likes taking poorly rooted cheap shots at the administration and the west as much as the former and his policies always kept people in squalor, like the latter. Win-win.

"We are a global community." That's a cute T-shirt and a swell Michael Jackson song, but it's nowhere near the truth.

"How do you go from a multi-billion surplus to a multi-million dollar deficit that fast" - You see, a surplus is when the government takes too much from you without paying interest. A deficit is when they don't take enough and they have to pay interest on the difference. You'd think that it would keep spending down, but you'd think wrong. Regardless, a deficit is the lesser of the three evils, with the third the worst yet - a balanced budget. That's when the government keeps increasing taxes until they get what they need - aka pay as you go. Also, Richards was as yellow dog as they come, no matter what she said.

"...it has nothing whatsoever to do with being a republican or a democrat - in fact it is amazing to me that so few republicans are angry with him given how he has pretty much violated the very precepts of his party such as fiscal responsibility, conservative spending and small government!" - Actually it does. When democrats don't get their way via will of the people, they appoint judges to do it for them, in what we know as a "living Constitution". At least the GOP lets the people decide. And since the undecided voter is more overblown than the stupid Kennedy conspiracies, voters usually favor small c-conservative candidates and policies. And Bush was elected by conservatives in spite of his views on fiscal responsibility, conservative spending and small government, not because of them. We all knew what we were getting in bed with, but it meant lower taxes, judicial reform and a global backbone. He was a "Compassionate Conservative", which means he spends like a sailor at port.

"Only immediate consolation is that Bush is such a lame duck right now that he is hopefully absolutely powerless." - regardless of your political views, that is really, really wrong no matter if the GOP is in power, the dems or the Whigs. I hope I don't need to explain why, but if I do, please pipe up.

"I naively never thought he would act so unilaterally, without thought or consideration of all he would bring about even as EVERY single INTELLIGENT agency was telling him his post war plans were flawed and ill considered." - This is a clich, I know, but I'd rather not ask the rest of the world for their opinion when it involves protecting this country's interests. And the second half of your statement is plain old not true.

McCain is as crazy as a sh*thouse rat - always has been.

And quickly - I'd much, much rather the rest of the world be pissed off at us when we are announcing our presence with authority than feel sorry for us because we just got sucker punched in the groin. On the karaoke chick, "she has accomplished what they claim the American Soldiers haven't been able to" - No, if it were not for American soldiers, she wouldn't have been able to perform in the first place. How quickly we forget the purple thumb, even if the savages can't stop killing one another right now. Yes, there were a ton of mistakes made in this war, and it was much more of a hornets' nest than we thought it would be, but you might as well whine to Thad Matta that he wasn't drilling his players enough on practicing their three pointers. I know that Risk is a really fun board game, and I'm sure you are all would be really, really good world leaders, but real war and real foreign policy is a little more complicated with a lot more unforeseen happenstances than a piece of cardboard.

It will probably be a few days before I can respond to the comments that I'm an idiot too, so please be patient and I'll try to patronize all of you when I have the time.

6thGen,
I am not about to accuse anyone of being an idiot nor do I intend to be patronizing even though I am sure I come off that way at times. I am going to try address your points succinctly because we are obviously worlds apart in our opinions and neither of us will EVER convince the other.

1) You say you love the gem I added about people regretting their decision to vote for Bush - I actually fervently wish I knew less Bush supporters than I actually do but I am surrounded by people here in this conservative part of Florida who have been vocal about this and do regret their vote - sorry - what can I say - I get angry with them but they are actually more angry at themselves than I am!

2) I remember who he was running against but I have no desire, will or inclination at this point to debate the merits of John Kerry - I know many people disliked and did not respect him but IMHO he would have been head and shoulders a better alternative - heck - anyone for that matter would have - no need to respond to this point though -it is moot.

3) How was Bush awarded the presidency????? Hmmmm, let's try recall the FACTS from 2000- Bush loses popular vote - yes, yes I know that does not matter - it is all about the electoral votes - so it is left to this State of ours and after months of hanging chads, lost votes, mistakes made on both sides, etc.. the supreme court HANDS him the presidency!

4) I have no worry about you picking on me - I have no idea whatsoever of what is an acceptable loss for casualties of war - what I do know however is that the losses suffered on both sides, but much much more so in sheer numbers on the Iraqi civilian side SHOULD be UNACCEPTABLE to all. Full stop. Period. Would you accept these losses here? Look at what happened when 3000+ innocent lives were lost on 911...... I will never be convinced this was a justifiable war. Simple as that.

I will also add that it is despicable, disingenious and hypocritcal to accuse people who vehemently oppose this war of being unpatriotic (and I am not saying you are doing this!) - I would add that this administration in their callous lack of regard for human rights and the ease with which they accept human sacrifice make them the unpatriotic ones.

5) Your stab at Carter and his policies fell flat with me - sorry - I am quite familiar with the nuances and difficulties of middle eastern politics and have my own ideas of what could possibly work. In an age where violence and bullying have become the norm I would welcome a visionary who could bring about change and democracy in a peaceful manner - you are welcome to call me naive and wishful.

6) I can skip portion of global community as I did not say that.....

7) Your disparaging comment about a balanced budget being regrettable is .. how do I put this....regrettable. Glad that you happy that you have been handed an unprecendented deficit - I trust that you will not mind if I tell you that probably many people are PISSED as hell about China holding such large IOU's.

8) I am just as tired as you seem to be about the debate on Bush being or not being a conservative and please tell me that you do not seriously believe that Bush is a compassionate conservative or fiscally responsible???? And absolutely NO, you did not all know what you were getting into bed with as you so quaintly and easily put it - read the dozens of editorials of hard core republicans who are sickened by how Bush and his party have violated and desecrated the tenets of the GOP.

9) Please do pipe up and explain who exactly is paying attention to Bush right now because I really really want to know? The people in this country??? Well maybe the 25% or so who approve of him -another 50% are paying no attention whatsoever with the remaining 25% probably actively working against him (these are just approximations and wishful thinking apart from the 25-30% approval rating which is actually thankfully documented (lest I be accused of being partial or biased!)...The house and Senate?? No -not them either? Oh, I see you mean other nations??? Nope, they have tuned him out and are now more interested in his successor - the UN possibly??? NO, sorry - they too have little interest in listening right now to his pathetic rhetoric... He is actually as lame as a lame duck can be - thankfully unelectable again - even more thankfully his VP is also unelectable, many members of his own party are running away from him and his policies in their own hopes of re-election - so pray do tell - who is listening and paying attention????

10) Your statement about prefering not to ask the rest of the world for their opinion if it involves protecting this country (and I going to try be very polite and not insulting here) is actually very sad because you probably believe the rubbish you are being fed. You probably believe you are safer now then before and how wrong and misguided you are in this. What your president has wrought upon this world with his arrogance and disregard is mindboggling and tragic - yes, tragic! For those of us who actually enjoy traveling, relish the differences in cultures and religions (and do not mock me by shooting down this argument by talking about suicide bombers or other extremists as I am talking about the vast majority of sane people who all want we all aspire to have - love, happiness health, etc..) we are dismayed by how much standing we have lost in the world and by how much more vulnerable we are.

And whilst many of my statements are indeed opinions as you state, my statement of the intelligence agencies of this country (you can happily forget other countries' intelligence for this point) telling him he was heading into an abject debacle is fact. You and I have absolutely nowhere to go if you believe this war was justified and if you do not believe that information was misused and trumped up in order to make a bogus case for war (for Christ's sake, even Powell now regrets his supposedly due dilligence and intelligence gathering!)

Real war and real foreign policy is as you say complicated. It is messy and hard and cannot be summarily summed up with bullet points and rhetoric. Too bad we had/have a president who could not respect due process, who found it alarmingly simple to march us into this war of madness on trumped up charges of protecting us, who bullied with embarrassing insouciance and indifference to other nations and who has now handed the world a mess of unimaginable proportions.

Rove,Cheney, and Rumsfeld have had undue influence in the limited space that is GW's brain. Musharraf is a strongman, not a President, any more than Saddam was. If you want to line up all the world leaders that merit removal because of atrocities, the list would be longer than this thread. Put some 19th century U.S. Presidents on the list while your at it. Gassing the Kurds, as callous as this sounds, is not,cause enough for this war or we would be spread out all over Africa, fighting Russia over Chechnya, and bombing N.Korea, parts of S.E. Asia, and China simultaneously for endless human rights abuses. The democracy/WMD/terrorism/past atrocities theories for war were all put forth by Bush's three rather now-quiet amigos. The chaos we now have actually strengthens Iran.

Very well put - I especially loved the part about the 3 amigos having undue influence in GW's limited brain!!!! :clap_1: :clap_1: :clap_1:

...and where, pray tell, is any effort at a diplomatic solution? Bush has left the military to do this alone while even the generals are telling him there is no military solution.

Yet, where is the Secretary of State? Where is the NSA? Who is working on the Peace Plan?

My father, my son's father and my son all served. WWII, Vietnam and Iraq...so, I am a believer in defending our country and my family members certainly have done their part, but this president has let us all down.

I applaud the outrage demonstrated by Chickpea and others. I just wish the people who say they support the troops would really do so and insist that this president get them out of harms way in a war that he chose to start for reasons that have nothing to with either terrorism or defending our country!

and for those who believe we are now safer, I just have this to say: find a person who has served, and ask them what they think about that.

No one else should die for Bush/Rove/Cheney's arrogrant mistake!

Rove,Cheney, and Rumsfeld have had undue influence in the limited space that is GW's brain. Musharraf is a strongman, not a President, any more than Saddam was. If you want to line up all the world leaders that merit removal because of atrocities, the list would be longer than this thread. Put some 19th century U.S. Presidents on the list while your at it. Gassing the Kurds, as callous as this sounds, is not,cause enough for this war or we would be spread out all over Africa, fighting Russia over Chechnya, and bombing N.Korea, parts of S.E. Asia, and China simultaneously for endless human rights abuses. The democracy/WMD/terrorism/past atrocities theories for war were all put forth by Bush's three rather now-quiet amigos. The chaos we now have actually strengthens Iran.

Spot on! You might also find some room for the influence of Wolfowitz in that "limited space".

.

6thGen, You have some valid points, but the whole of this discussion would be moot had we heeded Carter and stopped importing oil. I seem to remember the warning, say, 1978? I favor negotiation over unilateral war always. Intellectuals and those that have experienced war try to find the middle. Lightweights and panderers are always quick to show everyone they're the alpha male or badass. The problem is that you have to live with your mistakes. We sure are in the middle of one hell of a mistake, and the stupidity is on full display. Now GW and Congress are going to wrestle over money, and the military is going to be caught in the middle. Any move we make will cost us, and I hope we learn this time the hard way. We need to focus on the long term solution, an America free of oil as its primary energy source.

Bob,
I'll take any reference to heeding Carter with a grain of salt. I agree on the dependence on foreign oil, but it's not that easy. The Russians have and will have far more leverage with crude than the Middle East, which is scary as hell. However, there isn't a real alternative right now. Sure, we can stop importing oil, but there is a cost. Our economy would drastically slow (you think Smoot-Hawley was bad, watch if this had happened), and while it would slow but not stop dollars funneled to hostile states, it wouldn't stop the yen, yuan, rupee or euro from enriching the hostile states. In the meantime, foreign economies would leave the US in the dust, and our geopolitical stronghold would cease. There are answers, but it is best to leave them private sector, who has far more incentive than the public. As for unilateral war, please don't dumb down my argument. I never said any of that.

Tootsie,
Thanks for the enlightening comments and thoughtful discourse. I hope we can discuss this further at the next Mensa picnic, assuming you are still catering.

Tootsie,
Thanks for the enlightening comments and thoughtful discourse. I hope we can discuss this further at the next Mensa picnic, assuming you are still catering.

...assuming you'll be attending as a member's guest.

Damn thing about Mensa is they set the bar so low. 133? Sheesh, I could do that drunk.

For everyone who believes that the US went into Iraq, and the Mideast, to establish democracy for completely moral and selfless reasons please google the name Mossadegh.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh[/ame]

We were more than happy to overthrow a democratically elected leader when it suited us.

As far as the Mideast is concerned- we are acting, and have always acted, in our own interests first regardless of whether those actions are moral, or beneficial to the people of the region, or even beneficial to us in the long run.

And it is the long run part that has me very worried. Our track record in the long run is not impressive. It was the overthrow of Mossadegh that lead to anti-American sentiments in Iran and the eventual revolution. It was American support of the Afghani resistance and subsequent abandonment of support for that country once the Soviets withdrew that lead to the rise of the Talliban. Americans, in general, are woefully ignorant of Mideast history. Our Iraqi intervention was doomed to be seen as cynical by the Iraqi people, who I guarantee are well aware of our past interventions in neighboring Iran.

What is criminal is that the Bush Administration could be so blinded by their neo-conservative world view that they just ignored history and the reality of the Middle East.

I hope I am wrong about the long term consequences this time. I just don?t have a lot of faith that we can get the genie back in the bottle now that the whole region has been destabilized.

Damn thing about Mensa is they set the bar so low. 133? Sheesh, I could do that drunk.

are you whipping out the "I'm a Mensa Member" bragging card for any particular reason here? :roll: we are all sufficiently impressed, I am sure.

If you are a card carrying Mensa, I would assume that you are the complete opposite of "W". I'm confused.