-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Nice try Bush haters..........................it's fake ((confirmed))
- Thread starter Mrburns2007
- Start date
Red Dawn
Elite Member
Wow, don't be so hypersensitive when it comes to people making fun of Dubya's perceived lack of intelligence. His ascension to the White House just proves what a great country the USA is. The fact that he was able to achieve such a feat despite not being the brightest bulb in the chandelier is an inspiration to others who are often confused when trying to set the clock on their VCR's. It just proves that with plenty of money and friends and relatives in positions of power pulling strings for you, a simple mind won't necessarily prevent you from attaining lofty goals.
Well, personally, I think most people would agree with me when I say that the person I want to be running the most powerful country in the world (and my country at that) would be among the smartest people our nation has to offer. The reason why this rarely happens is because nowadays politians and red tape have taken over our government, and figureheads are chosen to lead, not the people who are among the brightest.
I will say, however, that the Cabinet saves every presidency, as the President's advisors are among the brightest in the country usually.
FeathersMcGraw
Diamond Member
That whistling noise you might have heard was the sound of Red Dawn's point flying overhead.
However, the problem with American politics (and likely most democratic societies) remains that the skills involved in crafting effective policy and being an effective politician do not necessarily overlap. To compound matters, those who might be most skilled at developing effective policy are not necessarily interested in pursuing civil service (I think there's a similar problem in education).
That's not to say that I assume that American leaders are boobs, but I think without significant reform, you're not going to see the best and brightest pursuing (and attaining) office. And the odds of that reform occurring, given that the policy would need to be laid down by those who would probably be replaced by it, are probably not that good.
FeathersMcGraw
Diamond Member
Mrburns2007
Platinum Member
That was Dan Quayle and nobody in the press knew that potato didn't have an "e" either, they had to go look it up. Which proves politicians and press are both idiots.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Is that a "Nazi Reference", because it's German? Also, why was it so inevitable?Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BDawg
Like the right-wing Geheime Staatspolizei never has fun with photoshop.
Link
Wow only 12 posts until the inevitable Nazi reference!
It's a Nazi reference because it's the word for gestapo. 🙂
The right-wing likes to think they're the holy divine leaders of the country. I'm just showing they're just as bad.
Linflas
Lifer
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Is that a "Nazi Reference", because it's German? Also, why was it so inevitable?Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: BDawg
Like the right-wing Geheime Staatspolizei never has fun with photoshop.
Link
Wow only 12 posts until the inevitable Nazi reference!
Inevitable in the same way that when "liberal" comes up ultimately the terms "pinko" and "communist" are thrown into the discussion.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
IQ has some peripheral relationship with ability to govern. At least in the sense that someone with one of 70 vs.140 isnt going to be able to compete.
IMO the ideal leader needs (and I am sure the list can be added to)
Reasonable intellegence to grasp concepts- Clinton had it in spades over other recent presidents. Very quick to understand.
Proper disposition- one that is too stubborn or proud or arrogant cannot work with others. This was a downfall of Clinton IMO. He seemed to believe he was better than his advisors. If so, he selected then on this basis. I will give Bush credit here. While he does not have the native intellegence of Clinton, he has what Red described. Experts who know a hawk from a handsaw (google it if ya dont know). Bush is too quick to anger though for my comfort.
A moral center. Another quaint notion of mine. If your ideas of right and wrong (and you need them) shift as is convient politically, then you stand for nothing. People learn this, and if some miracle occurs and that President says and BELIEVES something, no one cares.
Leadership- I define that as the ability to go forward to do the right thing in the face of the polls. In the short run it often costs politically, but then it is in someway the opposite of those in the last example where instead, people eventually learn to believe you and when you say a thing, you intend to try to get it done. It earns respect.
A good leader takes into account the input of the very best advisors, considers and defers to them if he finds their case compelling, but in the end he makes the choice to do so. And he ought to take the blame, because believe me any leader will take credit.
Wisdom- My definition- Wisdom is knowlege put to good and proper use. It is the knack of choosing the right thing, sometimes on just a feeling. It does not depend on degrees, it involves more than books. I would rather have a wise leader with an IQ if 100 than a foolish one who tops out the Mensa tests.
Anyway,
my thoughts
IMO the ideal leader needs (and I am sure the list can be added to)
Reasonable intellegence to grasp concepts- Clinton had it in spades over other recent presidents. Very quick to understand.
Proper disposition- one that is too stubborn or proud or arrogant cannot work with others. This was a downfall of Clinton IMO. He seemed to believe he was better than his advisors. If so, he selected then on this basis. I will give Bush credit here. While he does not have the native intellegence of Clinton, he has what Red described. Experts who know a hawk from a handsaw (google it if ya dont know). Bush is too quick to anger though for my comfort.
A moral center. Another quaint notion of mine. If your ideas of right and wrong (and you need them) shift as is convient politically, then you stand for nothing. People learn this, and if some miracle occurs and that President says and BELIEVES something, no one cares.
Leadership- I define that as the ability to go forward to do the right thing in the face of the polls. In the short run it often costs politically, but then it is in someway the opposite of those in the last example where instead, people eventually learn to believe you and when you say a thing, you intend to try to get it done. It earns respect.
A good leader takes into account the input of the very best advisors, considers and defers to them if he finds their case compelling, but in the end he makes the choice to do so. And he ought to take the blame, because believe me any leader will take credit.
Wisdom- My definition- Wisdom is knowlege put to good and proper use. It is the knack of choosing the right thing, sometimes on just a feeling. It does not depend on degrees, it involves more than books. I would rather have a wise leader with an IQ if 100 than a foolish one who tops out the Mensa tests.
Anyway,
my thoughts
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
