|
Never mind. I forgot I was talking to the guy who specifically called me a failure in life on these boards and thought it was hypocritical for me to not push for a welfare state as a result.Now who's badly misinterpreting things as a result of prior bias? Never mind that -- are you hung over this morning? Or just bored?
Actually, that post was the only one I found even remotely insulting to me from anyone on these boards. As to "bias", I think you just have blinders on to exactly how that came across.
And, I'm always bored or hung over, thought you knew.
Edit: seriously, after living my pre-prison life, nothing is remotely exciting any more.
Understood. You've got to realize that I'm a guy raised in America, paying the President's salary and other Americans' social security taxes (although I'll never see a dime of it), and yet I've known my whole life that I myself can never be president because I had the misfortune to spend the first few weeks of my life overseas.As a person that was raised in america and told as a child that anyone ... anyone can grow up and be president, this whole not "qualified" comments are disgusting to me.
</rant>
I actually would support changing the constitution to allow more people to be qualified. I think if someone is born to the parent(s) of a US citizen, anywhere in the world, then they should be qualified (get rid of this whole birther thing). I think if someone has been a nationalized citizen for 35 years, then they should be qualified.
But I'm a bit of a radical myself.
Actually, that post was the only one I found even remotely insulting to me from anyone on these boards. As to "bias", I think you just have blinders on to exactly how that came across.
Maybe so. You know I respect you, Derek -- you and I came up in much the same places, and I came very close to making the same choices you did -- so I personally have very little room to insult you for that. Take that as an apology, if one is needed.
|
|
Actually, that post was the only one I found even remotely insulting to me from anyone on these boards. As to "bias", I think you just have blinders on to exactly how that came across.Maybe so. You know I respect you, Derek -- you and I came up in much the same places, and I came very close to making the same choices you did -- so I especially have very little room to insult you for that. Take that as an apology, if one is needed.
Not needed, but appreciated.
I don't link circumstance to outlook, they're separate issues for me. If someone changes their core belief because their mistakes made life hard for them, I have far less respect for that person than someone that sticks by their guns.
One thing, though: I wouldn't advocate that ANYONE support a true welfare state, so I'm guessing our definitions there differ. I tend to think that, rather than being held hostage to corporate masters for it, taxpayers should be able to count on health care as one of the things they're already paying for. If that's a "welfare state," then so be it. I also strongly feel that, having "paid one's debts" as they call it, then the record should be expunged, rather than represent a perpetual bar to future opportunities.
If someone changes their core belief because their mistakes made life hard for them, I have far less respect for that person than someone that sticks by their guns.
Dunno; some years ago, I changed my core beliefs because I finally LEARNED from my mistakes. Never mind that if I'd refused to learn and "stuck with my guns," I'd be long dead now; more importantly, a lot of the respect I have is from being able to face things and re-evaluate what the hell I was thinking.
Actually, that post was the only one I found even remotely insulting to me from anyone on these boards. As to "bias", I think you just have blinders on to exactly how that came across.Maybe so. You know I respect you, Derek -- you and I came up in much the same places, and I came very close to making the same choices you did -- so I especially have very little room to insult you for that. Take that as an apology, if one is needed.Not needed, but appreciated.
I don't link circumstance to outlook, they're separate issues for me. If someone changes their core belief because their mistakes made life hard for them, I have far less respect for that person than someone that sticks by their guns.
That's strange- doesn't that mean that people can't learn from their mistakes and change themselves as a result?
|
|
If someone changes their core belief because their mistakes made life hard for them, I have far less respect for that person than someone that sticks by their guns.Dunno; some years ago, I changed my core beliefs because I finally LEARNED from my mistakes. Never mind that if I'd refused to learn and "stuck with my guns," I'd be long dead now; more importantly, a lot of the respect I have is from being able to face things and re-evaluate what the hell I was thinking.
I don't think what I thought when I was 20, but I'm not going to change my belief that spending money we don't have, and selling our future to Beijing so people can score political points is a seriously f!@%ed up way to run a country.
Frankly, the only way to explain the volume of bile from the Left is to assume she scares the hell pout of them (quirky populists can be very dangerous, politically, to people who don't communicate with "sixpack Joe" well, and, in fact, look down their noses at him).
I don't agree here. She's what the Dems fantasize about facing off with. A big part of all the vitrol being thrown at her comes from the fact that the Dems spend their time acting as if she is who they are campaigning against. Saves them from having to campaign against who ever is the actual local Republican opposition, he might be effective after all and who really wants to answer hard questions.
As a person that was raised in america and told as a child that anyone ... anyone can grow up and be president, this whole not "qualified" comments are disgusting to me.
But there's a distinction there: anyone can grow up to be president, but not everyone makes the choices that would make them a good candidate.
Take Sarah Palin for example, since she's topical. She gets tapped for VP candidate and it's revealed in the process of the campaign that she doesn't have a lot of the kind of world knowledge or understanding of governing at the national level you'd expect a good candidate for president to have. At that point, not such a big deal -- as a country we've certainly overlooked bigger faults in our VP candidates.
But: a person who wanted to make a serious case for electing them president in the next election (and, who knows, maybe she doesn't want that) would take action in the intervening four years to shore up those weaknesses.
Everyone can grow up to be president, sure. Just as everyone could grow up to be the next Tiger Woods -- but no one would feel bad telling a guy who wasn't particularly interested in golf and didn't really work at the game that he wasn't qualified to be the next Tiger Woods, and no one should feel bad about telling someone who doesn't take working towards being the kind of person who could be a good president seriously that they're not qualified to be president.
|
|
That's strange- doesn't that mean that people can't learn from their mistakes and change themselves as a result?Actually, that post was the only one I found even remotely insulting to me from anyone on these boards. As to "bias", I think you just have blinders on to exactly how that came across.Maybe so. You know I respect you, Derek -- you and I came up in much the same places, and I came very close to making the same choices you did -- so I especially have very little room to insult you for that. Take that as an apology, if one is needed.Not needed, but appreciated.
I don't link circumstance to outlook, they're separate issues for me. If someone changes their core belief because their mistakes made life hard for them, I have far less respect for that person than someone that sticks by their guns.
Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Take Jasper, and the incident with Mr. Byrd. Two of the three dudes involved with that were friends with the guy before they screwed up and went to the joint. They weren't really racist, just kind of redneck-y, but one of them was raped by a black guy and joined the Aryans for protection, and his friend joined just to get along. The experience completely changed their core beliefs. And a guy who needed a ride and saw two "friends" died as a result.
What they "learned" from their mistake was that black people are evil sub humans. That was the only life lesson they took from being arrested and going to prison.
Now, those two had the brain power of a dead boll weevil, but it doesn't change the fact that going to prison shouldn't have changed their core belief that all people deserve respect. If you let personal negative decisions and their effects on you change your core beliefs, you're doing it wrong, imo.
If you change your core beliefs because you learned more about a topic and feel that someone made a good argument that you can take to heart, that's a whole different thing.
If you change a core belief because you made a mistake and realize what you previously though is objectively wrong, that's a whole different thing.
As a person that was raised in america and told as a child that anyone ... anyone can grow up and be president, this whole not "qualified" comments are disgusting to me.
But there's a distinction there: anyone can grow up to be president, but not everyone makes the choices that would make them a good candidate.
Take Sarah Palin for example, since she's topical. She gets tapped for VP candidate and it's revealed in the process of the campaign that she doesn't have a lot of the kind of world knowledge or understanding of governing at the national level you'd expect a good candidate for president to have. At that point, not such a big deal -- as a country we've certainly overlooked bigger faults in our VP candidates.
But: a person who wanted to make a serious case for electing them president in the next election (and, who knows, maybe she doesn't want that) would take action in the intervening four years to shore up those weaknesses.
Everyone can grow up to be president, sure. Just as everyone could grow up to be the next Tiger Woods -- but no one would feel bad telling a guy who wasn't particularly interested in golf and didn't really work at the game that he wasn't qualified to be the next Tiger Woods, and no one should feel bad about telling someone who doesn't take working towards being the kind of person who could be a good president seriously that they're not qualified to be president.
No, they are qualified, they just might not be capable of getting the job. The not "qualified" means if she ran for president, and somehow won, then she would not be able to actually serve because she didn't meet a qualification for the office. That is what it means to be "not qualified", being a horrible prospect doesn't mean they are not qualified, they just might not be capable of performing.
Again, if you want to say something like that would be a horrible choice (and Obama didn't have any more experience in any of those areas then she did, so let's be honest about those "qualifications"), as you did in the bolded part, fine, but let's avoid the "not qualified". Sounds like too much like, "Can't be president because they are female" or "because they are latino" or whatever. People can have different opinions on what would make a good president, but we should have different opinions on what is the minimum qualifications to apply for the office.
and Obama didn't have any more experience in any of those areas...
I referenced knowledge, not experience.
|
|
and Obama didn't have any more experience in any of those areas...I referenced knowledge, not experience.
Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
Obama has 30+ IQ points on Bush. I'd go with a better example.
It's clear, if you pay much attention to Obama, whether you like his politics or not, that he's a policy nerd. Watch something like his "health care summit" with Congress from early last year -- if he weren't president he'd probably be arguing political ideas with yahoos on an internet messageboard somewhere.
It's equally clear that Palin, not so much. Things like nuances of constitutional law just aren't what interest her.
(Despite other similarities that could fairly be drawn between the two as politicians / celebrity figures.)
Note that I'm also not saying that every rightie is ignorant on these kinds of issues, or that every leftie is not. I'm specifically saying that Palin is. Watch, say, a John Thune (to pick a Republican) discuss policy. There's really no comparison.
|
|
Obama has 30+ IQ points on Bush. I'd go with a better example.Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
So, you're saying he's in the 90+ range? Not terribly inspiring.
Personally, I think the guy's intelligence is overrated. No one has seen his Harvard transcripts, he won't release them. All he has demonstrated to this point is that he's a better speaker than Bush, but that means jack. I know people who are off the charts that can't string three words together without stumbling over them.
|
|
It's clear, if you pay much attention to Obama, whether you like his politics or not, that he's a policy nerd. Watch something like his "health care summit" with Congress from early last year -- if he weren't president he'd probably be arguing political ideas with yahoos on an internet messageboard somewhere.
It's equally clear that Palin, not so much. Things like nuances of constitutional law just aren't what interest her.
(Despite other similarities that could fairly be drawn between the two as politicians / celebrity figures.)
Note that I'm also not saying that every rightie is ignorant on these kinds of issues, or that every leftie is not. I'm specifically saying that Palin is. Watch, say, a John Thune (to pick a Republican) discuss policy. There's really no comparison.
Here's the thing. I don't know that. Look at the article Kirth posted, the guy "quotes" Palin with something Tina Fey said on SNL. "You can see Russia from some parts of Alaska" (what she actually said) is factually correct. "I can see Russia from my window" was something said by a comedian on a TV show.
On the other hand, "57 states" and people in Vienna speaking "Austrian" is just plain ignorant.
Edit: and Palin has said some screwball s&!*, don't get me wrong, but it's screwball s@@* based on her political outlook. I.e. opinion.
Obama has 30+ IQ points on Bush. I'd go with a better example.Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
So, you're saying he's in the 90+ range? Not terribly inspiring.
Personally, I think the guy's intelligence is overrated. No one has seen his Harvard transcripts, he won't release them. All he has demonstrated to this point is that he's a better speaker than Bush, but that means jack. I know people who are off the charts that can't string three words together without stumbling over them.
Actually that is only with a working teleprompter, flying by the seat of his pants, he isn't really any better of a speaker.
|
|
The "Clinton Moment" is realizing he is the leader of a Center-Right (by American standards, not European) nation, and not, say, Canada.
I'm not suggesting a 1:1 type situation.
And I'm only discussing reelection possibilities; the Republicans are in a pretty sweet situation as they only run 1/3 of the thing right now, but can still frame the debate. Obama can make East and West coast liberals happy, or he can get reelected. There isn't a whole lot of middle ground.
That's not quite true. While a lot of Americans may buy the composite mantra of "lower taxes, kill deficit, smaller government, more money in my pocket", things get a lot more dicey for both parties when it comes to looking at specific things to cut.
1. Restoring the Bush tax cuts added a fair number of cars to the deficit freight train.
2. Despite the fear rhetoric of "Obamacare", many Americans welcome the immediate changes that have occured so far. Reversing them means kicking alot of folks back to uninsured status. Keeping those changes however without the national coverage mandate is going to cause a fiscal implosion.
3. And when it comes to specific benefit programs to be cut, you see a lot less willingness to come to a consensus to cut any specific program.
So yes, the Republicans got major mileage on rhetoric. When it comes to substance however, bringing in a "Bush 3.0" package isn't the easy sell you might think.
There are a metric assload of things they can cut RIGHT NOW and it won't affect the average American one bit. We spend close to a hundred billion a year just on crap like research grants to study beetles in Papau/New Guinea, grants to artists who need to either make something salable or find a patron (if you want to be an artist, fine, but expecting tax payers to subsidize your career choice is chickenshit), subsidizing ethanol (which even environmentalists are starting to regret, it's worse for the environment than petrol, and, you know, Montsano), a ton of crap like that.
Politicians are more worried about losing their lobbyist dollars than they are about effectively governing (on both sides of the aisle, so your statement is basically "whatever".
We collect enough tax revenue right now for universal health care, welfare, and education. We just need to cut out the b&%$~*$&.
|
|
Actually that is only with a working teleprompter, flying by the seat of his pants, he isn't really any better of a speaker.Obama has 30+ IQ points on Bush. I'd go with a better example.Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
So, you're saying he's in the 90+ range? Not terribly inspiring.
Personally, I think the guy's intelligence is overrated. No one has seen his Harvard transcripts, he won't release them. All he has demonstrated to this point is that he's a better speaker than Bush, but that means jack. I know people who are off the charts that can't string three words together without stumbling over them.
I give him points for being able to pronounce the words rolling across the screen. ;-)
Here's the thing. I don't know that. Look at the article Kirth posted, the guy "quotes" Palin with something Tina Fey said on SNL. "You can see Russia from some parts of Alaska" (what she actually said) is factually correct. "I can see Russia from my window" was something said by a comedian on a TV show.
Well, right.
Without getting into whether referencing the ability to see Russia is a workable answer to a question of foreign policy experience (because, really, Obama didn't have much to point at in that department either, which in theory was one of the reasons for picking Biden), I'm less concerned with pointing to what I assume are stupid errors in speech (because everybody makes them -- I even assume Palin knows the difference between North and South Korea, for example) and more concerned with the kinds of questions she just can't answer.
If I ask you, "What's the most powerful class in Pathfinder?" and you say "Fighter", we can disagree about it and/or CoDzilla can show up and say you're wrong. If you say "Fighting Man" I'll just assume you're confusing edition terminology and write it off. But if you say "All of 'em!" without a significant follow-up I'm going to assume you have basically no knowledge of the subject. Even Glenn Beck called b*~~~*$+ in response to Palin trying to give that kind of answer to his question of who her favorite founding father was.
Actually that is only with a working teleprompter, flying by the seat of his pants, he isn't really any better of a speaker.
Watch something like that aforementioned health care "summit". He certainly was arguing policy points and rebutting Congressmen on the fly there.
I'm not saying he's the orator of a generation, but I am saying he's a policy nerd. (I would think even people who think his policy ideas are stupid could admit that.)
|
|
Here's the thing. I don't know that. Look at the article Kirth posted, the guy "quotes" Palin with something Tina Fey said on SNL. "You can see Russia from some parts of Alaska" (what she actually said) is factually correct. "I can see Russia from my window" was something said by a comedian on a TV show.
Well, right.
Without getting into whether referencing the ability to see Russia is a workable answer to a question of foreign policy experience (because, really, Obama didn't have much to point at in that department either, which in theory was one of the reasons for picking Biden), I'm less concerned with pointing to what I assume are stupid errors in speech (because everybody makes them -- I even assume Palin knows the difference between North and South Korea, for example) and more concerned with the kinds of questions she just can't answer.
If I ask you, "What's the most powerful class in Pathfinder?" and you say "Fighter", we can disagree about it and/or CoDzilla can show up and say you're wrong. If you say "Fighting Man" I'll just assume you're confusing edition terminology and write it off. But if you say "All of 'em!" without a significant follow-up I'm going to assume you have basically no knowledge of the subject. Even Glenn Beck called b#!~&~&~ in response to Palin trying to give that kind of answer to his question of who her favorite founding father was.
Look, you know I'm not an Obama fan, and I'd take him 11 times out of ten over Palin, but a lot of the "she's an idiot" stuff is partisan noise. Have you read the Journolist transcripts? Even they know she's a lot sharper than people give her credit for, and decided to do everything they could to make her look bad.
You're just on the receiving end of that effort.
I'll say this, I'm going to be sorely put out if the left keeps underestimating her and she actually gets to a position where she has power because of it.
Look, you know I'm not an Obama fan, and I'd take him 11 times out of ten over Palin, but a lot of the "she's an idiot" stuff is partisan noise. Have you read the Journolist transcripts?
I don't think she's an idiot.
I do think she's fundamentally uninterested in things I would want a president to be interested in. (I also don't think my preferences in this regard necessarily preclude someone from being elected president.)
I do also hope the post-Couric "Palin model" of very controlled media exposure is a bust, even if it were to end up working for a politician I agree with.
|
|
Look, you know I'm not an Obama fan, and I'd take him 11 times out of ten over Palin, but a lot of the "she's an idiot" stuff is partisan noise. Have you read the Journolist transcripts?I don't think she's an idiot.
I do think she's fundamentally uninterested in things I would want a president to be interested in. (I also don't think my preferences in this regard necessarily preclude someone from being elected president.)
I do also hope the post-Couric "Palin model" of very controlled media exposure is a bust, even if it were to end up working for a politician I agree with.
Considering the hatchet job Couric did, I'd rather you hoped the days of media being partisan hacks and not doing their jobs was over.
(unless I am taking completely the wrong thing from your post, in which case, I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying. Clarify if I'm wrong, thanks. :D )
Even Glenn Beck called b%!~@&*~ in response to Palin trying to give that kind of answer to his question of who her favorite founding father was.
And this is a guy who cites Thomas freaking Paine when making a case for a Christian/Mormon nation. (Facepalm)
America today begins to turn back to God!
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
(unless I am taking completely the wrong thing from your post, in which case, I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying. Clarify if I'm wrong, thanks. :D )
Basically, I think in the aftermath of that interview, some politicians are experimenting with trying to cut the media and any non-pre-screen questions out of the loop entirely, doing communication exclusively through outlets that they have complete control over (e.g. Twitter.) And note that it's the exclusively part of that last bit that I have the problem with.
I don't think this approach is remotely unique to Sarah Palin; I just think she's probably the most high-profile person experimenting with this kind of strategy.
I think we're poorer as a country if we let it succeed -- I think we should value politicians who sometimes give stupid answers to questions to ones who don't give answers at all.
|
|
(unless I am taking completely the wrong thing from your post, in which case, I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're saying. Clarify if I'm wrong, thanks. :D )Basically, I think in the aftermath of that interview, some politicians are experimenting with trying to cut the media and any non-pre-screen questions out of the loop entirely, doing communication exclusively through outlets that they have complete control over (e.g. Twitter.) And note that it's the exclusively part of that last bit that I have the problem with.
I don't think this approach is remotely unique to Sarah Palin; I just think she's probably the most high-profile person experimenting with this kind of strategy.
I think we're poorer as a country if we let it succeed -- I think we should value politicians who sometimes give stupid answers to questions to ones who don't give answers at all.
I agree 100%, my point is, a lot got edited in the interview specifically to make the woman look even worse. I think it's smart to not walk into a non-live interview with parameters, just to prevent those sorts of goings on.
Live? Take the gloves off, people can come to their own conclusions, as opposed to having them tailored for them by editors.
You are not worth talking to. Sorry. You don't get it.
Typical partisan response. Make an excuse so you dont have to acknowledge it.
Ignoring the issue wont make it go away. In fact, its this type of response that is the problem with todays politics
No, your question was why hadn't someone pulled off a "Fox" which isn't the same. All of the major networks are pretty much conservatively biased. They just don't have the star performers that FOX has, or Fox like the Yankees is better at luring them away. With Comcast taking ownership of MSNBC, I think the remaining "liberal" commentators are being put on notice.The reason that most of them drift towards the conservative access is because the pay tends to be better.I think you missed the point of my question. Why doesn't another company give another "conservative access"? If you could pull off 1/3 of Fox's viewers, you would be pretty successful. You don't have to beat Fox, just pull enough of their customers to stay effective.I seriously doubt that. Comcast will be getting a brand, "Left Version of Fox", they aren't going to mess with that brand. Olbermann left because he doesn't work well with others (with comments like his boss "thinks he's actually my boss"). From what I've read and heard, MSNBC if going to get trouble from anything is from the NBC news organization, as they get tired of being smeared with the wackos on MSNBC.
But I seriously doubt Comcast is going to get rid of popular commentators or even seriously rein them in. Just sounds too much lefty conspiracy theory to me.
NBC worked hard for their scumbag reputation before MSNBC even existed. Consistently lying about issues and secretly rigging a "crash test" with an incendiary device to make a truck go up in a fireball to prove that it was unsafe don't exactly elevate a "news" organization's reputation.
|
|
You are not worth talking to. Sorry. You don't get it.Typical partisan response. Make an excuse so you dont have to acknowledge it.
Ignoring the issue wont make it go away. In fact, its this type of response that is the problem with todays politics
I'm trying to figure out, how, exactly, I'm a partisan. I've never voted for a Republican, and have only voted for one Democrat in my life (Ann Richards in '90).
My point in not wanting to discuss politics with you is you keep trying to shove me in a box I don't fit in, and I'm assuming it's because anyone who doesn't think 100% exactly like you is obviously a partisan hack for the other side.
Debate my point, fine. Tell me I'm an idiot, cool. Calling me a Republican? Them's fightin' words.
P.S. I hope this doesn't affect the conversation in the Cutler is a punk thread, I'm enjoying that one.
Actually that is only with a working teleprompter, flying by the seat of his pants, he isn't really any better of a speaker.
Didn't understand why this was brought up during the campaign. Don't really understand now. All presidents use them, end of story.
|
|
Actually that is only with a working teleprompter, flying by the seat of his pants, he isn't really any better of a speaker.Didn't understand why this was brought up during the campaign. Don't really understand now. All presidents use them, end of story.
It wasn't that, it was how uncomfortable and non-focused he is without it. Reagan and Clinton were both just as good off the cuff as they were behind the podium with the teleprompters.
Bush, at times, was actually a lot better without the things. He seemed more comfortable just talking, when he was reading off a script he got flustered and butchered words even worse. Not saying he was a good speaker either way, just illustrating the point a bit.
I guess the point is, if the dude can't do it without the safety net, don't tell us what a great orator he is.
So, you're saying he's in the 90+ range? Not terribly inspiring.
Personally, I think the guy's intelligence is overrated. No one has seen his Harvard transcripts, he won't release them.
And if he did, we both know you'd just make some comment about how grades don't mean anything, anyway. He doesn't play that game because he understands that he can't win -- the goalposts just keep getting moved. If you dig deep enough, "Smart" nearly always really means "what I would have done." The simple truth is that unconnected people who aren't sharp don't get into Harvard law.
All he has demonstrated to this point is that he's a better speaker than Bush, but that means jack. I know people who are off the charts that can't string three words together without stumbling over them.
The correlation between being smart and well-spoken isn't perfect, so it doesn't exist? As is often the case, your application of logic is rather...selective.
I'm going to bow out because this isn't going anywhere. Not liking the guy is fine, but if you're going to call him dumb, you might want to start by defining exactly what you mean, because he isn't dumb by any measure with which I am familiar.
|
|
So, you're saying he's in the 90+ range? Not terribly inspiring.
Personally, I think the guy's intelligence is overrated. No one has seen his Harvard transcripts, he won't release them.
And if he did, you'd just make some comment about how grades don't mean anything, anyway. He doesn't play that game because he understands that he can't win -- the goalposts just keep getting moved. If you dig deep enough, "Smart" nearly always really means "what I would have done." The simple truth is that unconnected people who aren't sharp don't get into Harvard law.
All he has demonstrated to this point is that he's a better speaker than Bush, but that means jack. I know people who are off the charts that can't string three words together without stumbling over them.The correlation between being smart and well-spoken isn't perfect, so it doesn't exist? Your application of logic seems rather...selective.
I'm going to bow out because this isn't going anywhere. Not liking the guy is fine, but if you're going to call him dumb, you might want to start by defining exactly what you mean. Because he isn't dumb by any measure with which I am familiar.
I'm not calling him dumb. I'm saying I think people overstate how intelligent he is. He's probably ahead of the curve, but he hasn't demonstrated any reason for me to think he's exceptionally so.
I'm not calling him dumb. I'm saying I think people overstate how intelligent he is. He's probably ahead of the curve, but he hasn't demonstrated any reason for me to think he's exceptionally so.
I don't know how smart this dude is, compared to the last one... but since this guy's first term has been, to me, indistinguishable from a 3rd term from the last guy, I'm not sure I'd make the margin too wide.
I'm not calling him dumb. I'm saying I think people overstate how intelligent he is. He's probably ahead of the curve, but he hasn't demonstrated any reason for me to think he's exceptionally so.
I think perhaps we don't quite connect on what intelligence means. As far as I know, intelligence means "scores well on an IQ test." I'm pretty sure Obama would crush 95+% of the population on such a test. I have -- many times. However, raw intelligence is not a great predictor of success, income, or very much of anything else. I'd say hard work, charisma, and just plain luck are all more useful in the real world.
There is plenty to criticize Obama over -- attacking one of his strengths seems counterproductive.
Edit: Though I guess what started us down this road was "who is more well-spoken?" I just don't see the leftist bias you do in that regard. Biden is regularly raked over the coals, for example.
I don't know how smart this dude is, compared to the last one... but since this guy's first term has been, to me, indistinguishable from a 3rd term from the last guy, I'm not sure I'd make the margin too wide.
Again, it depends on how you want to measure "smart." He certainly hasn't been terribly successful as president, especially given the expectations.
Another is the assumption that less a corrupt and invasive state seems to automatically means surrendering more power to massive corporateRight -- there are two other options:
(a) the states pick up the power vacuum individually, which means you've traded one too-powerful country for fifty lesser ones. This is sort of what Jess Door seems to lean towards, the rationale being that if one of those fifty states does things poorly, you have 49 other choices to pick from.
(b) The individual citizens -- all of us -- step up and fill that vacuum ourselves. This means abandoning party loyalty and thinking independently (which most people either cannot or will not do); it means constantly battling corporate interests, and helping others to do so even when it's against your short-term economic interest (and most people value security too highly to do so); and it means considering the needs of the other 300 million people in the U.S., not just those of your neighbor (which most people don't have a broad enough view to accomplish); and finally it still means roughly 150 million times as much bickering and arguing as we currently have (300M people, instead of just 2 parties). People like you and I, BT, would be willing to step up and take that on, with some measure of confidence. Others? Maybe not so much.
Notice that either way, though, the total level of power and control are nearly identical; we've just diffused it by a factor of 25 (in the case of Option A) or by a factor of 150 million (Option B). Because history has shown that if you reduce the net amount below a certain threshold, rather than forcing each person to step up and take on their share, it encourages people to cede control to a dictator. This is, with minor variations, what happened after the French Revolution, and in the Weimar Republic, and so on.
I'm certainly in favor of decentralizing power. I want to see power shifted away from DC and corporate rent seekers, and I want to see states, localities, and, most importantly, individuals get more power over their own lives.
What is your take on what I see as the current trend of government and corporate power both expanding rapidly in the current US environment?
What is your take on what I see as the current trend of government and corporate power both expanding rapidly in the current US environment?
I see that as a sign of a planet getting so overpopulated that each person feels his or her voice doesn't count at all anyway. And I agree with Jess in that one good thing about the Tea Party is that they've at least gotten people involved -- it's just that I'd like that involvement to maybe be more solutions-oriented, vs. being simply problems-oriented.
When there are 7 billion people on the planet, and 300 million in your country alone, it's hard to feel like you can make a difference. So people throw in with either (a) a "team," no matter how wretched it is and no matter how poorly it really performs; or (b) surrender their will to where their paycheck comes from -- their corporate masters. If people weren't afraid, we'd have six or a dozen parties duking it out on election day -- that would be a sure sign that people were ready to take responsibility. Instead we have the same 2 parties, both of them useless and getting further and further from any reasonable stance, just to spite each other -- and we have people going along with it because they can't envision a better alternative.
We need to give them that alternative. Spell it out. Show them what it could be. Telling them "the government is evil" doesn't give them something to strive for, only something else to be angry about. When a state government uncontestedly shows that it can do things more efficiently and more justly than the federal one, that will convince people the state governments are where the power should reside. If local governments start taking care of business that the federal government fails at, then people will naturally start paying a whole lot more attention to the local scene. And I think that's where the best bet for the future lies.
Obama has 30+ IQ points on Bush. I'd go with a better example.Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
I would point out that IQ and education are not always good metrics. I have friends in MENSA and one with a PhD who are barely functional adults. Thee of the smartest people I know are a HS drop out, a HS grad, and a PhD, and I've worked with a lot of people with advanced degrees.
|
|
I'm not calling him dumb. I'm saying I think people overstate how intelligent he is. He's probably ahead of the curve, but he hasn't demonstrated any reason for me to think he's exceptionally so.I think perhaps we don't quite connect on what intelligence means. As far as I know, intelligence means "scores well on an IQ test." I'm pretty sure Obama would crush 95+% of the population on such a test. I have -- many times. However, raw intelligence is not a great predictor of success, income, or very much of anything else. I'd say hard work, charisma, and just plain luck are all more useful in the real world.
There is plenty to criticize Obama over -- attacking one of his strengths seems counterproductive.
I don't even see how you're coming to that conclusion. Because he got into Harvard Law? The LSAT isn't that hard, and they have all kinds of minority programs he could have gotten in under. Furthermore, his grandmother was rich, so she might have had the connections he needed to get in. And he might have made some nice connections in undergrad that helped him get in.
Since he's been in the public eye, he's made pretty speeches, but he hasn't demonstrated any kind of genius. And 57 states. I can be exhausted to the point of nodding, and I wont forget there are 57 states in the union. I don't have an advanced degree and I know there's no language called "Austrian".
He's allegedly a history buff, but he thinks Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev ended the Cuban Missile crisis, not started it, he claimed he was even born because of the march at Selma Alabama, which happened when he was four, he claimed his grandfather helped liberate Aushwitz (ok, that one is just a lie, but, history buff, remember?), he blamed Bush for Chavez coming into power (he came in power in '98), and so on and so on.
Nothing he has done has demonstrated any political intelligence, either. China thinks he's a joke, European leaders are rapidly losing patience with him (and a few mock him openly), neither Israel nor Palestine have any faith in him at all, Karzai was a good puppet under Bush, but he's been talking to the Taliban for the last year in fear that Obama has no real plan, Ahmendinejad is even less worried about us doing anything about his nuclear program than before, and North Korea is even bolder than ever.
Domestically, he's tone deaf (that may change tonight, if he's half as smart as you think he is, he'll change his tone and maybe start acting like he's the president of the U.S.A, not, NY, Mass, NJ, Illinois and California), he mistook Bush fatigue for a mandate, he alienated the opposition in the first week of office, he froze them out of pretty much any of the process for the big ticket items they passed, and just all around made bad decisions.
Like I said, he is too gaffe prone, too tone deaf, and too full of himself to just assume he's a brilliant man. He may be brighter than average, but he's nowhere near the top 5%, based on the evidence.
|
|
I'm not calling him dumb. I'm saying I think people overstate how intelligent he is. He's probably ahead of the curve, but he hasn't demonstrated any reason for me to think he's exceptionally so.I think perhaps we don't quite connect on what intelligence means. As far as I know, intelligence means "scores well on an IQ test." I'm pretty sure Obama would crush 95+% of the population on such a test. I have -- many times. However, raw intelligence is not a great predictor of success, income, or very much of anything else. I'd say hard work, charisma, and just plain luck are all more useful in the real world.
There is plenty to criticize Obama over -- attacking one of his strengths seems counterproductive.
Edit: Though I guess what started us down this road was "who is more well-spoken?" I just don't see the leftist bias you do in that regard. Biden is regularly raked over the coals, for example.
Biden isn't a protected species. Never has been. Even liberal commentators had a "wtf" moment when he was picked before toeing the party line. And, I heard a lot of "Biden is brilliant" comments from the squawking heads after that moment passed.
And, they'd embarrass themselves badly if they didn't rake him over the coals, dude can't open his mouth without putting his and every other foot in the room in his mouth. That's just basic survival for the wonks.
|
|
I would point out that IQ and education are not always good metrics. I have friends in MENSA and one with a PhD who are barely functional adults. Thee of the smartest people I know are a HS drop out, a HS grad, and a PhD, and I've worked with a lot of people with advanced degrees.Obama has 30+ IQ points on Bush. I'd go with a better example.Don't make me pull out the examples of Obama's knowledge of geography and cultures.
I love how when a rightie says a bunch of stupid, ignorant crap, they're an idiot (and I'm not saying it isn't justified), but when a leftie does the same they "were tired", or "misspoke".
Meh.
Bugleyman has Obama's SAT scores and college transcripts, and he's not sharing. Only explanation. Obama has done little to demonstrate a superior intellect. Superior to Bush? Sure, but my cat demonstrate that, it isn't hard.
|
|
Before we go any further, we need to set some parameters here.1) I am not a republican.
2) I am not a fan of Fox news
3) I am fully capable of observing the world around me and come to my own conclusions without being influenced by 1) and 2), as both are irrelevant to me.
OK, fair enough. My fault if I wasn't giving you enough credit for that.
To your point about NBC/CBS/ABC making Republicans come off looking less than ideallic, I'd posit that that's less their fault and more the fault of the party platform. Those evening news broadcasts are designed to be watched by millions of people of various classes, income levels, and educational backgrounds. When the message seems to be "screw the little guy, let's help the big guy and assume he'll give the little guy some scraps under the table", the message is not likely to look good in broad daylight. It takes a fair amount of spin from Fox to make it look palatable, but they do an admirable job of it. In short, it's the message that stinks, not the telephone.
And man, Fox news is evil and is responsible for a lot of problems in this country today. If you don't believe that's the case, that's fine, because we're all entitled to our opinion. But, on the other hand, I'm going to continue to trot them out as evidence of ham-fisted curmudgeonly partisanship, because in my opinion, that's precisely what they are. It's not because they don't agree with the left. If they were a liberal station, I'd still think they were evil due to the amount of vitriol that they poison the water with and the way they conduct themselves on-air. There's just no place for it.
|
|
Before we go any further, we need to set some parameters here.1) I am not a republican.
2) I am not a fan of Fox news
3) I am fully capable of observing the world around me and come to my own conclusions without being influenced by 1) and 2), as both are irrelevant to me.OK, fair enough. My fault if I wasn't giving you enough credit for that.
To your point about NBC/CBS/ABC making Republicans come off looking less than ideallic, I'd posit that that's less their fault and more the fault of the party platform. Those evening news broadcasts are designed to be watched by millions of people of various classes, income levels, and educational backgrounds. When the message seems to be "screw the little guy, let's help the big guy and assume he'll give the little guy some scraps under the table", the message is not likely to look good in broad daylight. It takes a fair amount of spin from Fox to make it look palatable, but they do an admirable job of it. In short, it's the message that stinks, not the telephone.
And man, Fox news is evil and is responsible for a lot of problems in this country today. If you don't believe that's the case, that's fine, because we're all entitled to our opinion. But, on the other hand, I'm going to continue to trot them out as evidence of ham-fisted curmudgeonly partisanship, because in my opinion, that's precisely what they are. It's not because they don't agree with the left. If they were a liberal station, I'd still think they were evil due to the amount of vitriol that they poison the water with and the way they conduct themselves on-air. There's just no place for it.
Here's the problem. I don't have partisan blinders, and everything you say can be applied to the left as well. Fox didn't start with the partisan crap, they're just better at it.
If you look back in time, and read old newspapers and watch old news shows, you'd be amazed at the amount of bile piled on Reagan back in the day (for example). And everyone complains about how much crap Obama gets, it's like they conveniently forget how bile filled the media was towards Bush for eight years (a little bit after 9/11 excepted).
And you know what? From where I sit, there is zero demonstrative difference between Bush and Obama other than one speaks better in public.
Again, my biggest problem with both sides is that they're too blindly angry with the other side they can't see that they're two sides of the same toxic coin.