What is Digg?163 Comments
- zephc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+49What we need is someone who DOESN'T want to be President. Those who seek power should not be given it.
- zephc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+34I might also add that anyone who is *smart* and seeks power is most likely one dangerous cat.
- handshakedrugs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32@spinaboy
..."Bill Clinton was a regular guy and he was a pretty good president..."
Well, yeah he was a good president, but he wasn't a regular guy. I've read many different accounts of Clinton being a very, VERY smart person. Hell, he was a Rhodes Scholar. Regular guys aren't Rhodes Scholars. Clinton was just a good enough politician to hide the fact that he was/is smarter than most Americans. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -18/+48Sounds like Joe Biden or Al Gore to me, but we don't elect the smart ones. Just the ones with the best well oiled machines. I saw Al Gore on Coundown with Keith Olbermann and he was so dry and boring. But what he said makes sense. He also admits that he's not the best guy at doing the political thing. I just wish the country as a whole was smarter when it comes to what matters so dearly to us.
- mattxb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+32Its sad we even need an article about this.
- Echarter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28Why stop with the president? I want the we the people to be eggheads as well. Instead of playing in the sand box, it's about time to beef up the education in America. Enough of this dumbing down to create fodder for building and maintaining the infrastructure.
- AceTracer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27It wasn't that long ago that we elected a Rhodes Scholar president.
- DigitalJester, on 10/11/2007, -4/+29no.
- Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20The problem with technocracies is that "the experts" do not always know what's best, and they're just likely to get stuck in prestige battles and groupthink as your average politician.
Heck, the USSR was heavily technocratic, and we all know where that got them (...ok, so it was a *flawed* technocracy, since there were no feedback loops, but still...) ;) - cha0sFB, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18Indeed, character and princple are very important, but don't brush off intelligence so easily! You might get caught in a war authorized by a president who thinks he's "doin' the right thing", but is really just a dumbass.
- pbd1637, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Any one who is smart enough to be a good president is too smart to take the job.
- engwar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14I'll jump on the "no friggin' way" boat here.
I respected Colin Powell until he became a Yes-man for the Bush administration. I know his background is military and in the military you don't question your orders but jeez.
But he blew it when he helped to get us into Iraq.
I know he seems like a great guy and all but COME ON people. So many people voted for Bush the first time because he seemed like a regular guy too. That's not a good reason to vote for someone. - Metasquares, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15"Right" is relative. Bush thinks he's doing "what's right". What we need is a president capable of understanding that his or her moral values are not universally shared. If someone can't even get as far as understanding that differing value systems exist, I don't trust that person to handle something as complex as foreign policy.
- david76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14What "right" is pretty subjective and changes over time in the geo-political landscape. Having a president who understands this would be a good start.
- mwosh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I agree completely, but I hate to break it to you guys... The vast majority of the voting population don't regularly use the internet, have never heard of digg, and couldn't care less how smart our president is. They want a good ol' boy that "speaks their language"
How do you think Bush got elected... twice. - jarsfan2k8, on 08/13/2008, -5/+18@david76
I wasn't writing about the current administration and and Clinton's. Was just saying that for being a Rhodes Scholar, Clinton should have know that you don't lie under oath. - david76, on 10/11/2007, -8/+19@macfan76
Please, don't make me go into the differences here between the current administrations lies and Clinton's lies about the Lewinsky Affair. - jarsfan2k8, on 08/13/2008, -7/+18How about we all start watching Nascar, wearing belt buckles big enough to cook on and sleep with our sisters while we're at it? Man.....I could go for some moonshine right about now
- stealthc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13I sincerely think Ron Paul fits that bill. He's a doctor, a veteran flight surgeon, and a duly published scholar on economics, the constitution, and foreign policy. The issues we need a smartypants for the most. There is an extensive archive of his essays at LewRockwell.com. What other congressperson is so diligently studying and writing?
Not only does he *show up for work* in Congress, but he actually studies the issues and comes forward with educated, thorough opinions on them. Take for example his recent essay on the immigration compromise bill.
That, and I find him infinitely more trustworthy than the unscrupulous dunderheads running against him.
As for geek friendliness, he will never, ever allow gov. interference in the Internet. - david76, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Fair enough. Usually when people mention that, they're doing so in contrast to the piety of the current administration.
- MeneerR, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13You can always just move to Europe. Flee-ing Americans are more than welcome here ;-)
Believe it or not, the intellectuals have much more control here.
But that too is NOT perfect.
They at least try to make sense of the world, but the most dangerous extremes were also at least partly their doing:
- hitler's idea about struggle between races is a nice mis-interpretation of evolution.
- marx theory about capitalism was flawed, but it took 40 years and millions of death to prove that one wrong.
In a way, electing a dumb president at least garantees one thing:
- he doesn't have the brains to pull anything extremely dangerous or original.
- knowledge is power (Francis Bacon) => dumb leaders have less power => less ability to abuse power
Then again, if you go for a dumb president: please go for the dumb hippie, not the dumb cowboy.
Dumb wars are still wars. Stupid deaths are still deaths. Tree-hugging may be useless, but its also pretty innocent. - Metasquares, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I think we also need to add the criteria of not having caused the mess that needs to be cleaned up in the first place.
- phineous, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Bush got elected the second time because the sheep were scared. Now you must vote Rudy or die.
- theblooms, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I live in the South. I am conservative. I even like to watch NASCAR. And to top it off, I am SURE as hell smarter than you. Know how I know? Because I am not stupid enough to make blanket generalizations about, nor hurl insults at an entire population based solely on the geographic area they happen to inhabit.
- ElwoodHerring, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11That reminds me of a great quote from a certain J.R. Ewing a while back:
"Power isn't something you are given. Real power is something you TAKE!" - revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Gravel is easily the best candidate right now. But unless something big happens with him, there is no way he will win.
Ron Paul is my second choice, and he much better known than Gravel. If the MSM stopped being biased towards other candidates, he might actually have a shot. - nipplash, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10And it's that whole Joe Six Pack/LCD mentality that has put us in this mess in the first place. I want an intellectual running the show, not some beer drinking rube from Texas.
- jarsfan2k8, on 08/13/2008, -4/+11Are you serious?
- legatus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Denigrating people in the south with poor grammar is special.
You ask for a leader to lead, well nobody can deny Bush has been leading, just not where you want.
Has there been a Presidency that had more issues to deal with? Lincon perhaps, and he was hated by half the country too. - NatieB, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9I would settle for someone articulate. Is that too much to ask?
- vladtia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7we have that candidate; Dr. Ron Paul. Probably -- like me -- smarter than the teacher :o)
- jarsfan2k8, on 08/13/2008, -4/+10@david76
I agree there is a big difference. But prior to the invasion, it was almost a universal consensus in the US that Saddam had a active program. Hindsight being what it is, we shouldn't have invaded. But we didn't know that @ the time, imo helping bring democracy the the Iraqi people is a great thing to do. Oh....before people start whining about shut or enlist. I've been in for 11 years and just got off deployment last year. - cha0sFB, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Mike Gravel has shown that he is counseled by intellectuals on the policies he stands for. That I respect in the man, he doesn't rely on rhetoric but on wise and intelligent reflection and judgement. In my opinion a prospective president does not get much better than that.
He's got my vote. - Tabou, on 10/11/2007, -13/+18The same Colin Powell that pushed for the Iraq war and made a fool out of himself in front of the whole world? No, thanks!
- jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@meneerR
Hitler's misuse of evolution has nothing to do with biologists. To claim that Darwin is somehow partly responsible for eugenics is absurd. Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between Marx's economic theories and the political agendas of Marxism-Leninism. Marx even said he was glad he wasn't a Marxist. What followers of Marx's theories didn't understand was that communism is only possible in the absence of economic scarcity. Lastly, to slam the idea of electing an intellectual as President because they may use such intelligence to commit crimes is beyond stupid. I would ask you to try again but I don't suspect you would do any better. - Turambar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5presenting, the new iDemocracy!
- clyde2801, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Idiocracy, anyone?
- penncon, on 10/11/2007, -12/+17Intelligence is infinitely less important than character and principle. Give me a principled President that will stand up for what's right under every circumstance and a true desire to do what's right, and I'll take him over a "more intelligent" one every time.
The Presidency is NOT for the smartest among us, but for those who wish to defend and uphold the Constitution. - b_timmins, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5But doesn't he fit in the poodle category? If he was able to use his own brain instead he might be OK.
- Detritus, on 10/11/2007, -13/+18Yea, it is a little sad to say in 2007 but the geek hasn't quite inherited the Earth yet, we're still fixated on a 'sex-appeal' quotient that Al doesn't meet.
This article got me thinking though, why do all the younger guys here gravitate towards the Libertarian party when they could be promoting their own unique platform. Something like "Democratic Technocrats".
From Wikipedia:
Technocracy ("techno" from the Greek tekhne for skill, "cracy" from the Greek kratos for "power") is a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are usually highly skilled in fields of management or any other field. A technocratic government therefore is a government by experts. They are usually formed when it is impossible for a government to be formed until new elections are held in order to ensure administrative functions are carried out. In many countries the constitution precludes the formation of technical governments.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29
Surely that is much more inline with the personal-philosophical aspirations of all the younger diggers here than that of the Libertarian platform. - andburn1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@JK1150
Yes, the President has smart advisors, but if the President is not reasonable and intelligent enough to know that he (or she) must pay attention to advice, then it's all for naught. Confidence and courage are all well and good, but it's easy to mistake arrogance for confidance and recklessness for courage. Case in point: George W. Bush. - revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I don't think school is the problem. I think the ***** we (well, not me, but other kids my age) watch on TV is a huge part of why we are so dumb. Everyone watches reality TV, and no one watches the news.
- switters134, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I'd rather have someone embarrassed over their questionable hook-up's who then chooses to lie about it, because I'm willing to bet that there is at least one person most people have slept with they wouldn't want to admit to even if it was under oath, than a massive group of people who appear to be functionally retarded and with no long term memory. "I don't recall" being repeated as the mantra of this administration is far more upsetting than "It depends on the definition"
- tedez, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Thanks for your service. I served 23 years. The NIE did not support an active program in Iraq. But, that aside, where is it in our Constitution that it was the U.S. responsibility to provide Iraq with mob-rule (democracy)? My copy of the Constitution, that I swore to uphold and defend and have not been relieved of that responsibility, does not reflect that. In Article VI, section 2, The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and unless a scofflaw or tyrant, the elected "officials" must obey it. The current administration and most of the our illustrious congress at that time did not obey it.
- tedez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Yes, they did. But they didn't declare war as is their responsibility per the Constitution. So, the whole action was unconstitutional. And Bush, or any other person in the presidency, should have insisted that they did so. You have to have principles or you get scofflaw.
- celticwoman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I can't think of the guy who ran for governor in Texas. He was an author/singer and to some, a nutcase. But I watched 3 episodes of a documentary about his run for the office and dern it if he didn't make a lot of sense. I agree that "booksmarts" can be important but practical wisdom can go a long way too.
- legatus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5If it is Kinky Friedman, he was real slow in the head, very religious or so it seemed. I could not vote for him due to the fact he new nothing about any of the issues. When asked a question he would have some Witty quip or t-shirt slogan but no real clue.
- xmuzik, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7that article is a true sign of the times and in some ways border lines on great prose & poetry because it truly spells out the need that our country currently has in a very short , simple , and eloquent manner
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6The theme song for the Petty-Strait campaign would be "Dueling Banjos."
- david76, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9Nobody denies that Iraq _had_ WMD. The question was whether they had an active program and were an imminent threat. There's a BIG difference between the two.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is