Re: Coffee responsible for global warming

[Jeffrey Walton <noloader () gmail com>]

> (For example, any number of political figures fall squarely into
> this category; they're not inherently stupid, they're just not able
> or willing [or both] to wrap their heads around concepts that
> challenge their limited comprehension.)
Its always baffled me that they are usually bright folks who are more
than willing to resort to violence. When they exceed their limited
capacity to practice diplomacy, we get a war. I can't help but feel it
nullifies some of the arguments for the electorial college (namely,
common citizens are not smart enough to elect their president).

Speaking of politicians and presidents: George W. Bush does not appear
to practice diplomacy. GWB woke up with a unilateral erection and
decided to 'take Sadaam to task' because the US wields one of the
biggest guns, and the world is the wild, wild west.

Barrack Obama was more than willing to lie to get elected. Part of his
platform was withdrawal from Afghanistan. To date the US is still
carrying out their war in Afghanistan (the US Senate just approved
more money). Obama should be stripped of his Nobel prize since he
clearly does not deserve it. If I wanted a 'kindler, gentler war', I
would have voted for McCain.

Maybe the citizens are too dumb (they keep believing the politician's
rhetoric), and the politicians are not that dumb after all (they
continue lying and manipulating to get elected).

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 08:47:27PM -0700, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> > Ah, so despite a tested IQ above 170 (where the curve just ceases to
> > make any delta relevant), according to you, because I'm a skeptic,
> > despite the fact that I have a very strong grasp of the physics
> > involved, I'm a retard.
>
> You're not the only person here with a measured IQ in that range.
>
> As to "retard": your term, not mine, and not one I would choose; those
> who have mental disabilities fully deserve our compassion and help,
> as they're not responsible for their predicament or its consequences.
> I reserve my contempt for those who have no such impediments, and who
> may even be fortunate enough to enjoy innately high capabilities, but
> refuse to use them.  (For example, any number of political figures
> fall squarely into this category; they're not inherently stupid, they're
> just not able or willing [or both] to wrap their heads around concepts
> that challenge their limited comprehension.)
>
> ---Rsk

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.