Witness a true American female...

[Angel_de_Combate]

Ooooh yeah way past your bed time now..erm hmmm later ? Just say a time, well numbers of hours..i suck at the time difference thingy

[Hell_bound]

Originally Posted by Skatz1980

Ooooh yeah way past your bed time now..erm hmmm later ? Just say a time, well numbers of hours..i suck at the time difference thingy

Will do, till then...

Btw, I live in central time zone...

/Hell_bound over and out

[Leadoffhitter]

Originally Posted by Hell_bound

One can certainly look at both of these individuals and claim them to be unintelligent, but to do so would be an error on part of the outside observer.

To be an important tool of marketing and having some importance in society because of it doesn't make you intelligent at all.

In a world ruled by "politically correct" style and moral style of living... No Picassos, No Van Goghs, No Garcia Lorcas, no Cervantes, no Copernicus, No Galileos... Nothing.
Where mediocrity rules, no innovation... maybe just selling. No film from California senator can be considered really "intelligent" as none of the political measures taken by Bush administration are. (at least for anyone else than themselves!! I am not talking about practical and individual intelligence, for a presidence I always use the general interests, not personal ones)

Originally Posted by Hell_bound

For one thing it took intelligence for these people to surround themselves with people who believe in them and were willing to work to see their vision of reality come true.

I don't think political strategies works like that.
Both persons are just a "product" to be sold to electors by a marketing team, they just put faces. That's why they have to be trained to sit in the proper way, choose the right baby (white one if you want the vote of the white population, black one if they want to demonstrate that they don't have racial problems, etc.) to kiss in front of the photographers, choosing the right colors to get dressed or behaving in particular ways. These people does not have any "vision of reality". They're not there for that. Just to put an smile near the logo of their party.
(Btw, I've never seen a candidate with an smile lacking any teeth, for example)

Originally Posted by Hell_bound

This is the true mark of intelligence, and don't forget this...

There's no true mark of inteligence, sorry.
Practical intelligence? Emotional Inteligence? Linguistic Intelligence? Logical Intelligence?
http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Pr...telligence.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Gardner

It would be good if we don't talk about scientific subjects using any dogma. That's just darkness, middle age, lying to ourselves and the others.

Originally Posted by Hell_bound

Actually the Lewinsky mess surrounded Bill Clinton who was a Democrat, not a republican.

You didn't get my point as I can see. Maybe I didn't explain it right.

Exactly...
Clinton was a democrat, that's why REPUBLICANS used a woman (Lewinsky) to get public influence to take him away from presidence. Not being based on political results, economical success or international influence as a president should be judged, but a private sex thing. They didn't present a woman giving her any chance to demonstrate that she could be someone important with her own perspectives and plans, but to get a male rival away. That woman was just a tool to be used into a male war. (Where is she now?)
Just like Palin is, to get some of the female vote in the States. As Hillary has lost (she was a real candidate with chances to arrive to the presidence, of course in Republican party...) let's try to use someone that could get the female vote. Anyway she won't be vicepresident after Mr Bush politics. It's just to avoid a deeper gap with Obama. Even McCain knows that he will lose. Just like Republicans knows that they wouldn't be able to get a black candidate to win US presidence if the previous president was not an awful republican one (someone like Nixon was needed to be able to make this step; Mr Bush)

Originally Posted by Hell_bound

So with everything else in your post, one must ask: Of the two dominate political parties in America, who uses females the most as an ends to a means (whatever that means be and the ends)?

And if you took a critical look, the answer might surprise you...

I think it's pretty clear to me, trying to use my best critical look. Did you try the same?

[Hydroxidee]

/me wonders why Hell Bound is banned

[Hell_bound]

Originally Posted by marchalain

To be an important tool of marketing and having some importance in society because of it doesn't make you intelligent at all.

I disagree because for one thing in politics marketing can only get you so far...

At some point you have to go out in the community and face the public and their questions...

This means that unexpected things will happen...

You cannot market something as fickle as the public opinion, nor can you be prepared to know the unknown...

Originally Posted by marchalain

... No Picassos, No Van Goghs, No Garcia Lorcas, no Cervantes, no Copernicus, No Galileos... Nothing.

I agree with you here, but you have to look at it from the average person's perspective...

The average person cares not for Van Gogh, for (1) he cannot be understood by the average person, (2) he is unwilling to dictate reality to others - he allows them to come to their own reality, and (3) because of this Van Gogh cannot change the average person's outward life...

Politicians have a specific job and is to be the voice of the people, make sure that people's wants (such as education, jobs, heath care and so on) are being met and to regulate those systems which work against these wants...

Also politicians serve to create rationals when there is a need to do something the public wants, but is unwilling to do it - like go to war over resources...

People like Van Gogh are hardly up to such a task...

Originally Posted by marchalain

...Where mediocrity rules, no innovation... maybe just selling. No film from California senator can be considered really "intelligent" as none of the political measures taken by Bush administration are.

The problem here is that your conflating your personal opinions about these two men with those opinions that agree with yours, as the bases of your perspective of reality as being true...

The truth is Bush's administration was very intelligent, though unethical, in getting most of the world to not only back the US up on an attack on Iraq, but also to get other nations to send in their youth and die for it too...

As I always say... It's a matter of perspective my boy.

Originally Posted by marchalain

...I don't think political strategies works like that.

Yes, well there are a many things I thought did not "work that way" and have been proven wrong...

Originally Posted by marchalain

... There's no true mark of inteligence, sorry.

Actually there is, and I'll use the psychological definition: Intelligence is adaption, adapting to your environment so that you can benefit from it. That is the mark of intelligence...

Originally Posted by marchalain

... It would be good if we don't talk about scientific subjects using any dogma.

All things that man does has an inherent dogma... How else would he be assured in anything he does or believes?

And you would be wise to note that when I say "all things he does" it includes everything besides religion too, like science and individual perspectives...

Man needs faith in something to live and faith become dogma when you work on making that faith a worldview, or the lens by which you see the world through...

Originally Posted by marchalain

... that's why REPUBLICANS used a woman (Lewinsky) to get public influence to take him away from [ his presidency]...

The problem here is that you give to much credit to the republicans...

Good old Bill, in this case, was being a human male and got caught, once caught the republicans ran with it...

The republicans didn't set Bill up...

Bill fell trap to his own lusts, end of story.

[Angel_de_Combate]

YOU got unbanned after a day....

[Hell_bound]

Originally Posted by Skatz1980

YOU got unbanned after a day....

And your point is?

[Angel_de_Combate]

NAH i dont want to play anymore..i dont give a flying rats ass

[Leadoffhitter]

Originally Posted by Hell_bound

I disagree because for one thing in politics marketing can only get you so far...

At some point you have to go out in the community and face the public and their questions...

This means that unexpected things will happen...

You cannot market something as fickle as the public opinion, nor can you be prepared to know the unknown...




I agree with you here, but you have to look at it from the average person's perspective...

The average person cares not for Van Gogh, for (1) he cannot be understood by the average person, (2) he is unwilling to dictate reality to others - he allows them to come to their own reality, and (3) because of this Van Gogh cannot change the average person's outward life...

Politicians have a specific job and is to be the voice of the people, make sure that people's wants (such as education, jobs, heath care and so on) are being met and to regulate those systems which work against these wants...

Also politicians serve to create rationals when there is a need to do something the public wants, but is unwilling to do it - like go to war over resources...

People like Van Gogh are hardly up to such a task...




The problem here is that your conflating your personal opinions about these two men with those opinions that agree with yours, as the bases of your perspective of reality as being true...

The truth is Bush's administration was very intelligent, though unethical, in getting most of the world to not only back the US up on an attack on Iraq, but also to get other nations to send in their youth and die for it too...

As I always say... It's a matter of perspective my boy.




Yes, well there are a many things I thought did not "work that way" and have been proven wrong...




Actually there is, and I'll use the psychological definition: Intelligence is adaption, adapting to your environment so that you can benefit from it. That is the mark of intelligence...




All things that man does has an inherent dogma... How else would he be assured in anything he does or believes?

And you would be wise to note that when I say "all things he does" it includes everything besides religion too, like science and individual perspectives...

Man needs faith in something to live and faith become dogma when you work on making that faith a worldview, or the lens by which you see the world through...




The problem here is that you give to much credit to the republicans...

Good old Bill, in this case, was being a human male and got caught, once caught the republicans ran with it...

The republicans didn't set Bill up...

Bill fell trap to his own lusts, end of story.

Mmmmmm

I will try to express the most polite way possible for me to say what I think. English is not my first, nor second language, so try to understand the ideas instead of "going to look with a loop the words". (Btw, does this sentence have any sense? Don't try to answer, this is a rhetoric way to write. I'm not asking you anything. This dialogue will be over after this post, I'll try to explain you why.)

It takes a lot of time and effort to advance to get full common knowledge. The one that makes advance to most of the people, instead of the individual advance. (I'm not interested on the tools to make one man powerful, but a big bunch of them independent.)

You use to reproduce lyrics from other people that weren't written to express your ideas.
And you try to use them just as a vehicle to communicate when these ideas of yours are something it's just in your mind. There should be some common knowledge to be able to communicate using "self symbols" instead of common ones. But whenever you don't like it you use your "self symbols" as a way to escape or to plainly avoiding to understand the other or to provoke him.

It goes against the effort coming from the other.
You simply make the discussion impossible deliberately. Making feel the speaker in front of you frustrated. You know it and you enjoy it.
I think you feel gladly proud of that ability you have to create provocation.
But that provocation you can create:

1) gets angry to the other that is making efforts to be understood (common knowledge, and from there exchange of ideas...), that person just see someone destroying all the effort invested. Not too much respect to the "other" on that reaction...

2) There's not possibility to advance in the conversation, you just want to test and "win" in an "oratory" way. You're not interested in "what comes with it", right after. The knowledge or lack of it afterwards.

Well, as this kind of "common advance" takes so many time and effort...
As it seems impossible with you as I honestly said...
And as I'm interested on that and not "win an oratory prize" (I recognize it's pretty easy with me, because my english is weak), but a "dialectic" exchange... (You just use perspective to be right, my boy. The way I see it you run away from real building up situation)

It's useless for me to continue in this discussion. I declare myself out of the contest!


I wish you the best and I wish one day you'll prove me wrong.

Bye.