IDBillzFan Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Perhaps thinking with one's "gut" or asking "god" for advice or even flipping a coin is better than over-thinking in a leadership role. They would also be preferred over the current leadership role, which is to keep saying what you think needs to be done, and somehow believing that if you say it enough, they'll somehow magically get done. "What if you mix the mayonnaise in the can, WITH the tunafish? Or... hold it! Chuck! I got it! Take LIVE tuna fish, and FEED 'em mayonnaise! Oh, this is great." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Hard to argue with straight-up facts. Your point about intellectuals over-thinking things and therefore not making good leaders is interesting though. Perhaps thinking with one's "gut" or asking "god" for advice or even flipping a coin is better than over-thinking in a leadership role. It's an interesting idea at least, even if it is disappointingly counter-intuitive. Over-thinking very often tends to lead to "paralysis by analysis", and a general incapability of doing anything or of acting in half-measures to avoid making a mistake (or they come from an academia background, where they have lots of ideas but no real responsibility or practical experience). Decision-making is actually a learned skill. "Intellectual" is pretty much synonymous with "someone who never has to make decisions". You know what's worse than intellectuals? Pseudo-intellectuals Good thing we don't have any of those around here... Hedd's not THAT bad... ...oh, hey, wait a minute! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 It´s a bit humorous to see the same folks chime in at every opportunity they can get, just to say ¨Sarah Palin is dumb¨, even when the article or link suggests otherwise. Lets be real here folks, she is no dummy, she´s able to get you yahoos to remain fixated over her while making gobs of money. The reality is that she is an intelligent, yet very divisive woman who knows how to play the media like a champ. In regards to her political career, my guess is she´ll never hold office ever again, she has made herself into the caricature she has become. You can call her what you want, but she is no dummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 It´s a bit humorous to see the same folks chime in at every opportunity they can get, just to say ¨Sarah Palin is dumb¨, even when the article or link suggests otherwise. Lets be real here folks, she is no dummy, she´s able to get you yahoos to remain fixated over her while making gobs of money. The reality is that she is an intelligent, yet very divisive woman who knows how to play the media like a champ. In regards to her political career, my guess is she´ll never hold office ever again, she has made herself into the caricature she has become. You can call her what you want, but she is no dummy. she is street smart, no doubt. but is that enough to compensate for her obvious deficits in her general fund of knowledge? you're right, it doesn't matter if her goal is to make money. it matters plenty if her aim is to be potus. i think and hope you're right about her goals although i actually would like to see her run and be forced to debate substantive and in depth, complicated issues. "aw shucks" just won't cut it in discussing the middle east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) she is street smart, no doubt. but is that enough to compensate for her obvious deficits in her general fund of knowledge? you're right, it doesn't matter if her goal is to make money. it matters plenty if her aim is to be potus. i think and hope you're right about her goals although i actually would like to see her run and be forced to debate substantive and in depth, complicated issues. "aw shucks" just won't cut it in discussing the middle east. What would Obama say about the middle east, hope and change are needed there? Edited June 14, 2011 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 What would Obama say about the middle east, hope and change are needed there? Bow. Then bow again, and again. Its working, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) she is street smart, no doubt. but is that enough to compensate for her obvious deficits in her general fund of knowledge? you're right, it doesn't matter if her goal is to make money. it matters plenty if her aim is to be potus. i think and hope you're right about her goals although i actually would like to see her run and be forced to debate substantive and in depth, complicated issues. "aw shucks" just won't cut it in discussing the middle east. An American politician forced to 'debate substantive and in depth, complicated issues'? What century are you living in?? Sadly, I'm sure Palin could be coached to spit out some pre-programmed crap as well as every other candidate whose only goal is to not say something 'controversial'. Moderator: Mr Candidate, you have 90 seconds for a rebuttal..... Edited June 14, 2011 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Sadly, I'm sure Palin could be coached to spit out some pre-programmed crap as well as every other candidate whose only goal is to not say something 'controversial'. As evidenced by the fact that she already has? (Ref. the '08 VP debates). I'll still insist that, based on that alone, she's not as dumb as she seems. No one truly stupid could be coached that well that quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 As evidenced by the fact that she already has? (Ref. the '08 VP debates). I'll still insist that, based on that alone, she's not as dumb as she seems. No one truly stupid could be coached that well that quickly. you found her impressive in those debates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 you found her impressive in those debates? The first one...and "impressive" would be relative to what I expected. Really...she didn't do much of anything except keep her composure and piss off Biden, and most of her answers were coherent, if shallow. Which, while not a notable set of accomplishments, is certainly more than we should reasonably have expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 The first one...and "impressive" would be relative to what I expected. Really...she didn't do much of anything except keep her composure and piss off Biden, and most of her answers were coherent, if shallow. Which, while not a notable set of accomplishments, is certainly more than we should reasonably have expected. agreed, but hardly a ringing endorsement for the office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 14, 2011 Author Share Posted June 14, 2011 agreed, but hardly a ringing endorsement for the office. Right, but it goes to show she is not a total brain dead idiot. She would likely be a horrible President, but she would at least probably try to cut the budget. I think she is probably average to slightly above average IQ and possesses a certain street smarts. She has zero chance of the nomination. Michele Bachmann has a better chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 What would Obama say about the middle east, hope and change are needed there? he said some rather controversial and i would say brave things about israel and palestine recently. reasonable people might argue as to whether they were profound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 he said some rather controversial and i would say brave things about israel and palestine recently. reasonable people might argue as to whether they were profound. Profound? Pro Palestinian maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 i'll admit that liberals court impoverished (and therefore frequently undereducated voters) but not through deliberate educational repression. clinton was the last president that seriously tackled medicaid reform. it's generally cheaper to give hand outs than to actually change cultures and educational levels and i believe that's why more hasn't been done in this regard by both dems and repubs. it's the least expensive route to a reasonable level of civil obedience. conservatives court other less educated groups but by different means- social issues like abortion, gun rights and immigration. there's no monopoly on seeking dumb (m)asses votes. So why do they keep asking for more money for "education" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 agreed, but hardly a ringing endorsement for the office. I never endorsed her for the office; all I said was that no one who preps that well in two weeks is as dumb as people assume she is. Though if it came down to her and Bachmann... Bachmann just scares the **** out of me. Something about her reminds me of the crazy lady that lives down the street from us, who every so often knocks at our door and offers to give our cats a bath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 What would Obama say about the middle east, hope and change are needed there? I believe he said "Let's bomb Libya" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I believe he said "Let's bomb Libya" Some people find that profound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I believe he said "Let's bomb Libya" He never said that. He did say that we wouldn't stand idly by, but would take a limited military action as part of a broad coalition, because Qadaffi has lost the letigimacy to lead and must leave, but we're not fighting against Qadaffi, and that we'll continue to apply pressure until he leaves, and all options are on the table, but ground troops won't be used. But he didn't say "Let's bomb Libya." 'Cause he's...y'know...an intellectual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 He never said that. He did say that we wouldn't stand idly by, but would take a limited military action as part of a broad coalition, because Qadaffi has lost the letigimacy to lead and must leave, but we're not fighting against Qadaffi, and that we'll continue to apply pressure until he leaves, and all options are on the table, but ground troops won't be used. But he didn't say "Let's bomb Libya." 'Cause he's...y'know...an intellectual. none of which reflects the sentiment "hope and change are needed there". agree or not, military action is substantive and qaddaffi likely sees it as profound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts