You claim he does not exist. To make that claim you must have proof of it, otherwise it´s just a belief that Santa does not exist.
Again, prove to me that Bush got his degrees fair and square.
Prove to me that the voting system in USA has not been tampered with.
If you can´t prove any of this then all you have is beliefs. Just like me.
Yea, I see what you're thinking, but you're missing something. Watch Southpark? They recently pointed out that there is no evidence to suggest that the thanksgiving pilgrims weren't aliens.
See, you can make any outlandish claim you want in the absence of evidence - none of it is supported. All of the existing evidence supports the fact that the pilgrims were human beings (our records of them coming from England, descendants, the fact that the natives recognized them as having human characteristics such as walking upright and having two eyes, two legs etc. etc.). Now, none of that evidence PROVES that they were humans, but it has to be the ASSUMPTION in the absence of any contrary facts. The more outlandish the claim (like the notion that they were aliens), the more evidence is required to outweigh the existing evidence.
Bush graduated from Yale with a history degree. That's not exactly astounding. Bush got reasonable scores on his SATs, so his admissions application to Yale suggests that he should be accepted. He chose an easy major and got middling grades to graduate. None of that suggests that he was a rocket scientist, or astonishingly brilliant. It also suggests that he wouldn't have needed any help (other than someone to pay the tuition).
5 years after graduating, with some valuable experience in business (presumably a result of the Bush family being involved in business), he would have a good transcript to get in to Harvard business school (again, gotta pay the tuition). An MBA is more about practical application rather than theory, something Bush would have had much access to given the environment in which he grew up, which would give him a leg up over other students. It's not a stretch by any means to think that he could achieve that without pressures on the institution.
By contrast, to suggest that he required some sort assistance not only requires that we impeach the character of Harvard and Yale as institutions, but also that we figure out how exactly this influence would reach individual professors at the institution. It requires a network of activity that is most likely not in the interest of the institutions (given that it would degrade the value of their degrees, make it harder for them to retain good instructors, and could result in a horrible scandal for the university). So it is on you to establish that TWO SEPARATE universities did, in fact, act against their own interest in a complex conspiracy levied on dozens of instructors (each with their own level of integrity) all to achieve a fairly pedestrian result.
Bush also showed a great deal of intelligence in office. I would argue moreso than Obama. So when establishing that Bush is an idiot, one needs to counteract that evidence as well.
One thing I love most about the "Bush is an idiot" argument, is that the same people that make that argument often make the "conspiracy to take Iraq's oil" argument (which hasn't panned out in the slightest). But regardless, which is it? Is he an evil genius manipulating public opinion and masterminding a carefully planned Iraqi takeover all designed to covertly pump funds into his pockets and the pockets of oil companies through a vast network of business connections? Or is he an idiot? You can't make both accusations.
