Sean Hannity questiones Obama's intelligence using gaphes?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by d-rell, Aug 31, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. d-rell

    d-rell New Member

    May 21, 2004
    Is such a subjective question.. that it almost makes a person dumb for trying to answer it definitively... I will attempt however...

    An intelligence measurement would be required and standardized testing doesn't appear to be sufficient enough a model.
    Take two IQ test participants and co-workers. One scores high, the other low. In this scenario, they’re both competing for the same job promotion. Given this information in most assumptions we would expect the high scored to obtain the promotion, indicating that we perceive intelligence to be confirmed in achievement. However, I personally know of too many exceptions to this assumption: the highest achievers are not synonymous with the highest test scorers. So it would seem intelligence is results-driven and can only be measured in hindsight… but wait.

    Let’s take Brown v. Board of Education, a Supreme Court ruling that at the least acknowledged that school segregation was unfair. Afro-Americans students were under a systematic disadvantage in the work force easily and radically affecting racial achievement gaps that would otherwise suggest white supremacy in intelligence. I could go on… But as far as intelligence goes, if its yardstick is desired results then it also must contain ecological factors as well.

    How do we analyze achievements of a desired outcome, and therefore intelligence? Is intelligence always a praiseworthy quality or is it predicated on the user and the circumstance? Was Bin Laden intelligent when he orchestrated the attack on the twin towers and pentagon? Is a candidate intelligent if he/she wins an election after deciding to undertake a slanderous campaign against an opponent who chose the moral high road?

    Obama ran a campaign on change (emphasized by his policy proposals such as transparency) and conviction (emphasized by his refusal to endorse the Iraq war when other joined with the former administration). Proclaiming change, awhile casting McCain as akin to the former administration especially as its economic policy began turn disastrous post-Lehman Brothers undoubtedly won Obama the independent support needed to win a presidential election.

    Obama ran deeply on Health Care reform, the politicians preceding him the last few decades have failed at passing such reform. He used his attributes, his unique name, and his race as a more obvious conveyor of the idea of change to muster a vast coalition of support and then he immediately utilized his enormous political capital over his weaken opponents to accomplish the greatest health reform legislation since the 60s; a cause obviously personal for the President arising from his mother’s suffering and disputing with insurance companies over pre-existing conditions.

    Obama didn’t run on a political brand or the sorts of nepotism, or fraud, or excessive mudslinging, he ran on strategic and pragmatic thinking. Obama and his team (team led by Axelrod, whom Obama selected as chief strategist) revolutionized grassroots campaigning.

    Say what you will… the results speak for themselves. Obama was a Senator from Illinois for only three years, a relatively unknown voting record, and elevated to the highest office in the land… now aiming to be re-elected.

    Obama/Congress Health Care Summit- Part 1 - YouTube

    ^ He definitely figured how politics and health care intersected … Obama = one of the most brilliant politicians of our time. imo.. a few political gaffes don't disqualify you from intelligence.. however in politics when gaffes override your policies and principles then it likely lessens your electability and that = Sarah Palin dumb

    notice my title lol ;-)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)