Octopus Overlords

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Keep at it, you'll get it eventually.

Pretty sure he had it right both times...

I disagree. Now what?

No need to strain yourself, but perhaps you could expound your reasoning?

No worries. If Grund decides to put up a serious response, I will as well.

GreenGoo wrote:

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Chrisoc13 wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Keep at it, you'll get it eventually.

Pretty sure he had it right both times...

I disagree. Now what?

No need to strain yourself, but perhaps you could expound your reasoning?

No worries. If Grund decides to put up a serious response, I will as well.

Well the article said he was an imposing intellect and I'd say we have seen nothing to prove this other than he can read a prompter pretty well. Fairly certain that is what Grund was getting at, unless you have some other specific reason to think that the President deserves the descriptor of imposing intellect.

Arcanis wrote:Well the article said he was an imposing intellect and I'd say we have seen nothing to prove this other than he can read a prompter pretty well.

Oh my lord. Really, Arcanis? Really?

Whatever you may think of his politics or his leadership skills, the idea that Obama is a moron beggars the imagination. The man was president of the law review at Harvard, graduated magna cum laude, and got himself elected Senator at 44 and President at 48, despite having no dynasty to build on. He passed the health care bill that Clinton never could, nabbed the terrorist that Bush could never catch, and actually got Europe to help us in toppling a hostile power in the Middle East, which was accomplished in months instead of years and without American boots on the ground. Disagree with and dislike the man all you want, but he's proven he can do a bit more than simply read a teleprompter.

And, typically, although I admit that it is not 100%, you are an eloquent public reader because you are not stupid, rather than Grund's suggestion that Obama might be considered intelligent because "he read teleprompter good".

He's got his cause and effect backwards. He's not smart because he reads well. He reads well, in part, because he's smart.

I'm with Lil' Raven on this one. Not the finest showing from those who are unhappy with Obama this time around. Even the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty would have prevented this. Grund was making a drive by funny criticism. I made a drive by refutation. Suddenly it's a topic for serious discussion.

Little Raven wrote:

Arcanis wrote:Well the article said he was an imposing intellect and I'd say we have seen nothing to prove this other than he can read a prompter pretty well.

Oh my lord. Really, Arcanis? Really?

Whatever you may think of his politics or his leadership skills, the idea that Obama is a moron beggars the imagination. The man was president of the law review at Harvard, graduated magna cum laude, and got himself elected Senator at 44 and President at 48, despite having no dynasty to build on. He passed the health care bill that Clinton never could, nabbed the terrorist that Bush could never catch, and actually got Europe to help us in toppling a hostile power in the Middle East, which was accomplished in months instead of years and without American boots on the ground. Disagree with and dislike the man all you want, but he's proven he can do a bit more than simply read a teleprompter.

By no means was I saying he is stupid. But I just don't see anything to show he is so smart that he is imposing. His Harvard record is the only thing you listed that has anything to do with his intellect and while impressive I don't think it is enough to say he is imposing. Healthcare bill was thanks to a super majority in both houses so it should have been even easier than it was, getting Bin Laden was the intelligence community he just gave the order once they had found him, & Europe was already going in he just offered help.

Arcanis wrote:But I just don't see anything to show he is so smart that he is imposing.

Look at the original context. Frum is arguing against the Republican belief, promoted by Fox News, that Obama is a pathetic loser capable of nothing more than spouting a few words from a teleprompter. He believes Obama to be a man of considerable intellect and savvy, and thinks Republicans underestimate him at their peril.

Of course, Frum has thought this way for a long time, which is probably why he is no longer welcome at Republican events.

Little Raven wrote:

Arcanis wrote:But I just don't see anything to show he is so smart that he is imposing.

Look at the original context. Frum is arguing against the Republican belief, promoted by Fox News, that Obama is a pathetic loser capable of nothing more than spouting a few words from a teleprompter. He believes Obama to be a man of considerable intellect and savvy, and thinks Republicans underestimate him at their peril.

Of course, Frum has thought this way for a long time, which is probably why he is no longer welcome at Republican events.

So he is exaggerating the case to counter misinformation.

I'm just tired of hearing how he is the smartest guy on the planet (or similar absurd statements exaggerating his intelligence) and when asked no one ever gives a good reason why they believe that. Your Harvard Law review statement is the best answer I've seen yet, but I don't see that as enough to quantify his intellect as imposing. It is likely a language issue as I see an imposing intellect as one in which smart people, such as most lawyers, wouldn't want to be opposing him in an intellectual argument as he would solidly beat them.

Arcanis wrote:So he is exaggerating the case to counter misinformation.

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'imposing intellect.'

If you take it as "the smartest man who ever lived, even Superman despite the fact he isn't even real!" well, yes, Frum is exaggerating. If your definition is more like "you cannot talk to this guy for 5 minutes without becoming convinced that he is very, very smart" then he probably isn't. Frum, after all, has actually talked to Obama on multiple occasions, and despite the fact that he loathes Obama's political views, has walked away impressed.

Arcanis wrote:But I just don't see anything to show he is so smart that he is imposing.

I would add that his handling of the Arab Spring movements and their chaos have been about as well done as could be. Patient, seizing opportunity where it presents itself and yet managing for them not to turn into full-blown anti-american movements, as would have been unthinkable during Bush's presidency. Things could still go drastically wrong there, but in finding his own way there rather than taking a black and white view as Cheney would have, he has made it possible that it will be a huge positive in the coming decades there.

I'd even argue that the public feuding with Israel while still cooperating on Iran (e.g. Stuxnet, recent nuclear facility explosions including the deaths of the North Korean consultants - while all hypothetical all seem as if we would have outright knowledge of them, if not participation/collaboration) and supporting them with regards to Palestinian statehood in the UN, is another example of his navigating that part of the world as well as can be done.

On the other hand Arcanis, what is your criteria for intelligence in a President? Please give examples from recent presidents, so we can establish the baseline.

I laid out my criteria. He has to be smart enough to be intimidating to people who are supposed to be peers, on an intellectual level. People have to basically say that once he enters a debate they need to slam on the breaks and rethink everything they are doing. I would expect most political leaders to be imposing enough to intimidate regular people while in this context he should intimidate even the political leaders.

Just watching video of him chatting casually with people, then watch the same sort of video with Bush chatting (I don't mean gladhanding, I mean actual discussion of serious topics). Politics aside, the difference in intellect is obvious and significant.

And as Lil' Raven said, imposing is a personal impression, and probably one that you can't have unless you are confronted by the man. I don't find his intellect imposing, but I bet if I spent 15 minutes in a conversation with him I might change my mind.

In any case, intellect is clearly not a vital quality to be a politician or leader of the free world, so while this is an interesting debate, it has nothing to do with his viability to govern (or not).

And before anyone mentions Bachmann, I think a certain minimum is required. It's just that there is no need to be near the maximum to do the job.

Arcanis wrote:I laid out my criteria. He has to be smart enough to be intimidating to people who are supposed to be peers, on an intellectual level. People have to basically say that once he enters a debate they need to slam on the breaks and rethink everything they are doing. I would expect most political leaders to be imposing enough to intimidate regular people while in this context he should intimidate even the political leaders.

How can you be imposing to intellectual level peers? If they are peers then they are of similar intellect. That applies to special ed class as much as it does to a mensa meeting.

That said, intellect has nothing to do with getting people to change their minds. Why would it?

This is turning into a strange discussion.

Little Raven wrote:

Arcanis wrote:So he is exaggerating the case to counter misinformation.

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'imposing intellect.'

If you take it as "the smartest man who ever lived, even Superman despite the fact he isn't even real!" well, yes, Frum is exaggerating. If your definition is more like "you cannot talk to this guy for 5 minutes without becoming convinced that he is very, very smart" then he probably isn't. Frum, after all, has actually talked to Obama on multiple occasions, and despite the fact that he loathes Obama's political views, has walked away impressed.

I can't speak for Arcanis but whether someone is way smarter than me is not the question when it comes be having an imposing intellect. I guess being way smarter than me is ubiquitous and this state doesn't phase me nor even put me in awe. Obama has proven to be way too snake oil salesman for me feel his being imposing.

For someone to have an imposing intellect, I have to assume they have they crazy ass knowledge base, that they use it casually and matter of factly, that they see larger complex pictures in a simple and organized fashion, and that are simply right without thinking about it. They don't speak in rhetoric, emotion, and persuasion. What is interesting about any one I've met like this, they are ironically humble. They're too busy being fascinated by life to be actively imposing and they don't want to be imposing. They want a freeflow of thinking, not a debate or the imposition of their will. Obama doesn't fit the bill. If he did, he wouldn't stay glued to the teleprompter and he'd be quick in casual discourse with answers and plans and putting pieces together with success and he'd be excited about those pieces coming together while being calm in his understanding.

When Obama goes off on how he put together and passed the most important piece of legislation in US history (the health care bill and that's how he touted it. I'm not exaggerating. His post health care reform press tour was insulting.) he didn't come off as knowledgeable or imposing or realistic or benevolent or as someone who sees the big picture. He comes across as a slick douchebag you don't trust. Great. You're smarter than I'll ever be and you're the most powerful in person in the world. What's that gotten us? What's that gotten me? I guess you're not smart enough to get my vote again. So nope, I'm not suitably impressed.

GreenGoo wrote:Just watching video of him chatting casually with people, then watch the same sort of video with Bush chatting (I don't mean gladhanding, I mean actual discussion of serious topics). Politics aside, the difference in intellect is obvious and significant.

Is that fair?

In any case, intellect is clearly not a vital quality to be a politician or leader of the free world, so while this is an interesting debate, it has nothing to do with his viability to govern (or not).

Absolutely. Or at least it has little to do with electability, which gives one the right to govern.

It's turning into a discussion because Obama as a simple teleprompter reader is a Republican meme.

I personally find that particular cry highly amusing considering the intellectual giant they supported for the previous 2 terms.

Fair enough. It's not that I'd disagree with everything you said, but I would certainly disagree with some of it.

Which means we've arrived at why this discussion is not particularly useful, unless the plan was to hear everyone's definition of imposing intellect. Given that intellect has no agreed upon definition for everyone, and imposing is certainly a personal impression, how there could ever be an agreement is beyond me.

I could say that Bush is the most intellectually bankrupt president of the last 30 years. I have no idea how a concrete discussion could evolve from a statement like that, given the subjectivity of the words used.

LordMortis wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Just watching video of him chatting casually with people, then watch the same sort of video with Bush chatting (I don't mean gladhanding, I mean actual discussion of serious topics). Politics aside, the difference in intellect is obvious and significant.

Is that fair?

It may help with perspective, which is all I was going for here. It's not that I'm saying you have to be this high to be considered intellectual while holding up Bush as being just below the line.

Little Raven wrote:

Arcanis wrote:Well the article said he was an imposing intellect and I'd say we have seen nothing to prove this other than he can read a prompter pretty well.

Oh my lord. Really, Arcanis? Really?

Whatever you may think of his politics or his leadership skills, the idea that Obama is a moron beggars the imagination. The man was president of the law review at Harvard, graduated magna cum laude, and got himself elected Senator at 44 and President at 48, despite having no dynasty to build on. He passed the health care bill that Clinton never could, nabbed the terrorist that Bush could never catch, and actually got Europe to help us in toppling a hostile power in the Middle East, which was accomplished in months instead of years and without American boots on the ground. Disagree with and dislike the man all you want, but he's proven he can do a bit more than simply read a teleprompter.

That's an odd list of qualifications for imposing intellect.

Solving (not negotiating) the debt crisis. A nobel prize in physics rather than politics peace.

I'd give him gifted statesman, but imposing intellect? That's reserved for the Stephen Hawkings of the world.

GreenGoo wrote:Which means we've arrived at why this discussion is not particularly useful, unless the plan was to hear everyone's definition of imposing intellect. Given that intellect has no agreed upon definition for everyone, and imposing is certainly a personal impression, how there could ever be an agreement is beyond me.

I could say that Bush is the most intellectually bankrupt president of the last 30 years. I have no idea how a concrete discussion could evolve from a statement like that, given the subjectivity of the words used.

GreenGoo: Welcome to the world of internet forums, where unanswerable questions are asked, and few if any political topics discussed are ever agreed upon by all participating members!

My bad. I forgot this was the internet. I forgot to translate the hyperbole.

noxiousdog wrote:I'd give him gifted statesman, but imposing intellect? That's reserved for the Stephen Hawkings of the world.

See, for me, Stephen Hawking goes well beyond 'imposing intellect.' Stephen Hawking is a genius. He sees the universe as few other people can. His intellectual gifts so far outpace the norm (even among physicists...boy try spelling that word five times fast) that we have to put him in a special category.

'Imposing intellect,' to me, just means they're very smart, and able to project that fact when desired.

Carpet_pissr wrote:GreenGoo: Welcome to the world of internet forums, where unanswerable questions are asked, and few political topics discussed are ever agreed upon by all participating members!

I know, I don't really understand why I'm in this one, other than boredom. I think I was trying to keep it somewhat honest and objective. Maybe?

And to counter ND's point about the Stephen Hawking's of the world, for some reason I don't consider those who are extremely smart on specific topics as being intellectuals in the sense being discussed here. Obscenely smart in the field of physics? Sure. But an intellectual?

I guess I think of an intellectual as a wise and thoughtful person, with vast knowledge and the wisdom to understand the implications of that knowledge. The ability to communicate, debate and understand new concepts (new to themselves or the person(s) they are talking with). Being mentally agile, thoughtful and intellectually honest.

Even defining what intellectual means is not an easy task, and seems open to debate.

Little Raven wrote: genius. He sees the universe as few other people can. His intellectual gifts so far outpace the norm (even among physicists...boy try spelling that word five times fast) that we have to put him in a special category.

You've hit what I think of an imposing intellect pretty well there.

LordMortis wrote:

Little Raven wrote: genius. He sees the universe as few other people can. His intellectual gifts so far outpace the norm (even among physicists...boy try spelling that word five times fast) that we have to put him in a special category.

You've hit what I think of an imposing intellect pretty well there.

See, I consider that to be poop my pants scary smart rather than imposing. So we can't even agree on that, although I am trying to from my end.

GreenGoo wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:GreenGoo: Welcome to the world of internet forums, where unanswerable questions are asked, and few political topics discussed are ever agreed upon by all participating members!

I know, I don't really understand why I'm in this one, other than boredom. I think I was trying to keep it somewhat honest and objective. Maybe?

And to counter ND's point about the Stephen Hawking's of the world, for some reason I don't consider those who are extremely smart on specific topics as being intellectuals in the sense being discussed here. Obscenely smart in the field of physics? Sure. But an intellectual?

I guess I think of an intellectual as a wise and thoughtful person, with vast knowledge and the wisdom to understand the implications of that knowledge. The ability to communicate, debate and understand new concepts (new to themselves or the person(s) they are talking with). Being mentally agile, thoughtful and intellectually honest.

Even defining what intellectual means is not an easy task, and seems open to debate.

We aren't talking about intellectual. We are talking about someone so intellectual that they can IMPOSE that intellect on others. He can't even consistently do that with people of his own philisophical framework.

But whatever.

noxiousdog wrote:We aren't talking about intellectual. We are talking about someone so intellectual that they can IMPOSE that intellect on others. He can't even consistently do that with people of his own philisophical framework.

But whatever.

Er, the free dictionary defines imposing as

im·pos·ing (m-pzng)
adj.
Impressive, as by virtue of size, bearing, or power: the monarch's imposing presence.

This is an example of the verb and adjective having similar, but different meanings.

How do you impose an intellect?

Ok, back to actual election stuff. In particular, Newt's secret weapon.

If 2008 was the year a generation of impressionable young voters rallied behind Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich is hoping 2012 is the year the elderly strike back. And so far, his plan seems to be working.

The former Speaker has made senior citizens a key plank of his strategy since the beginning of his run. Gingrich’s first major speech after declaring his candidacy was in front of a conference on Alzheimer’s disease. And after his campaign collapsed, he identified the elderly as a crucial part of his comeback plan, making the nation’s “grotesquely underfunded” research into treating the disease a centerpiece of his fundraising speeches.

“I’m going to campaign on, how do we deal with Alzheimer’s, which really affects millions of Americans,” Gingrich told FOX News’ Neil Cavuto in June.

Seniors’ place in his campaign is perhaps the best lens for explaining some of Newt’s most perplexing early decisions, like his tendency to tack left on entitlements and right on Obama conspiracy theories. You might say, to understand Newt Gingrich you have to understand elderly anti-Obama thinking.

Well, it's certainly better to bet on old people voting than young people, but I remain unconvinced that this is the ticket to the White House. Might work for the nomination, though.

His campaign basically collapsed. The rats abandoned ship in droves. I will be flabbergasted if he can turn it around and win. I'd have no choice but to believe that there simply wasn't anyone else and the republicans had to prop someone up there. He'd get the nomination by default.

Wait, what? Are you talking about Newt, or somebody else?

Gingrich is doin' great right now. It seems to be coming down to him or Romney.

Little Raven wrote:Wait, what? Are you talking about Newt, or somebody else?

Gingrich is doin' great right now. It seems to be coming down to him or Romney.

Yeah, Newt. Wasn't that long ago that his campaign manager and other high level people in his organization jumped ship. Everyone expected him to toss in the towel at that point. But he didn't. And here we are.

Oh, ok. I see where you're going.

Yeah, Newt has really benefited from having every other "not-Romney" candidate self-destruct. I'm just surprised that he's so competitive with Romney. What is it about Romney that drives away so many conservatives? The Mormonism? The changes in position? Romneycare?

I don't know, but there must be SOMETHING if Newt can be so close after all that's happened.

GreenGoo wrote: there simply wasn't anyone else and the republicans had to prop someone up there. He'd get the nomination by default.

He said this himself not more than two days ago...something to the effect of "I am not claiming to be a great candidate, but I am better than the other chumps and fools up here currently"

He is certainly a good choice for those that want the Anti-Obama though, as Obama's pre-election rhetoric was to heal the divide between parties, and Newt was the primary architect of the political divisiveness we are experiencing today. His thing during his power days was not just to discredit and defeat his Democratic opponents, but to demonize and completely obliterate them, with no compromise. Truly the grandfather of "us against them" in modern politics at least.

And that might be a point in Newt's favor. God knows Obama hasn't succeeded in getting any kind of bipartisan talk going, much less a deal of any kind.

Little Raven wrote:And that might be a point in Newt's favor. God knows Obama hasn't succeeded in getting any kind of bipartisan talk going, much less a deal of any kind.

Oh absolutely. He is the old school, hard core NeoCon archetype...and compared to the (let's be honest) LAUGHABLE buffoons and milquetoasts that plague the current platform (Huntsman and Paul excluded...who are the only ones that I have seen that actually talk about specifics and details, not just generalized rhetoric BS), is a completely different animal.

So basically, he's perfect...EXCEPT for that nasty NASTY baggage which everyone knows will sink him in the general. Not to mention his recent outright lies about not being a lobbyist. Hell, don't even need to mention the "wife had cancer and he left her for another woman", what about the mind boggling hypocrisy of grilling Clinton for his blowjob while he was having an extra marital affair at the same time! Or the clamoring about "the definition of "is" defense" when he is now doing the EXACT same thing about his lobbying. Splitting hairs and being obtuse verbally, so as not to...perjure himself.

It disgusts me personally, but I am sure many a card carrying Repub. will be willing to overlook those details.

Carpet_pissr wrote:
It disgusts me personally

This. And I don't even know what his stance is on anything. He just seems a despicable person in all parts of his life. I am amazed he appears to be a viable option.

msd said even a wet, slimy turd would be better than Obama. We might just find out if that's true or not.

Newt has a record of producing fantastical alternative history in his fiction. That's going to make for an interesting sound bite in 2012.

If you don't think Obama has an imposing intellect, you've missed his early 2008 interviews by Charlie Rose and haven't been listening. Obama has been reading teleprompters and sounding like a politician lately because that's the President's job.

GreenGoo wrote:

Little Raven wrote:Wait, what? Are you talking about Newt, or somebody else?

Gingrich is doin' great right now. It seems to be coming down to him or Romney.

Yeah, Newt. Wasn't that long ago that his campaign manager and other high level people in his organization jumped ship. Everyone expected him to toss in the towel at that point. But he didn't. And here we are.

That wasn't a "the ship is sinking" reason that people left. It was that they opposed the way he wanted to run the campaign so they departed type. They were not happy he wasn't out there whoring for money more.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Little Raven wrote:Wait, what? Are you talking about Newt, or somebody else?

Gingrich is doin' great right now. It seems to be coming down to him or Romney.

Yeah, Newt. Wasn't that long ago that his campaign manager and other high level people in his organization jumped ship. Everyone expected him to toss in the towel at that point. But he didn't. And here we are.

That wasn't a "the ship is sinking" reason that people left. It was that they opposed the way he wanted to run the campaign so they departed type. They were not happy he wasn't out there whoring for money more.

Agreed. Well, except for what the disagreement was about. It wasn't that simple.

That said, when the captain and most of his crew bail, the ship is going to run aground eventually. Especially if they don't think the ship is seaworthy any more. I just assumed (and I wasn't alone) that it would be sooner rather than later.

Arcanis wrote:

Little Raven wrote:

Arcanis wrote:Well the article said he was an imposing intellect and I'd say we have seen nothing to prove this other than he can read a prompter pretty well.

Oh my lord. Really, Arcanis? Really?

Whatever you may think of his politics or his leadership skills, the idea that Obama is a moron beggars the imagination. The man was president of the law review at Harvard, graduated magna cum laude, and got himself elected Senator at 44 and President at 48, despite having no dynasty to build on. He passed the health care bill that Clinton never could, nabbed the terrorist that Bush could never catch, and actually got Europe to help us in toppling a hostile power in the Middle East, which was accomplished in months instead of years and without American boots on the ground. Disagree with and dislike the man all you want, but he's proven he can do a bit more than simply read a teleprompter.

By no means was I saying he is stupid. But I just don't see anything to show he is so smart that he is imposing. His Harvard record is the only thing you listed that has anything to do with his intellect and while impressive I don't think it is enough to say he is imposing. Healthcare bill was thanks to a super majority in both houses so it should have been even easier than it was, getting Bin Laden was the intelligence community he just gave the order once they had found him, & Europe was already going in he just offered help.

You said his ability to read a teleprompter was proof of his imposing intellect. Now you're saying he DOESN'T have an imposing intellect? Is that you, Mitt?

Ale

GreenGoo wrote: I could say that Bush is the most intellectually bankrupt president of the last 30 years. I have no idea how a concrete discussion could evolve from a statement like that, given the subjectivity of the words used.

People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education.
-- Barney Frank

Gods, how we're going to miss Barney.

That said, intelligence takes different forms. Obama might run rings around Bush in book learnin' and reasoning ability, but Bush might have been more shrewd at manipulating factions and fooling voters. Which quality better serves a politician?