FDR? George washington? Lincoln?

Lol.

Worthless list.

JustusCF

Based off what we know of them, FDR might be the most progressive (not liberal progressive. but ideas that have a foreseen ability to work) president ever.

Washington's great because he's essentially the Richard Hatch of the US game: set all the precedents for how to be an effective leader.

Lincoln's great because he is one of the few presidents who wasn't willing to compromise (compromise is bad when you have good plans). His ability to work both sides enabled great change in US culture.

Name three people who are clearly better than them.

Isn't that similar to the whole, "This rock keeps away tigers," mentality?

ConMan: "This rock keeps away tigers."

Mark:"That's ridiculous. How can you make such claims?"

ConMan: "You don't see any tigers around here, do you?" mattbbpl

It's similar. But the difference is, Bush was an assertive force (whether or not it was the key factor we can only speculate); a rock is a passive force. The way they function reveals different information. But, as the beloved Christoper Hitchens would say, "what should he have done? relax?" A non-decision was a necessary disaster. Also, the fact that no major instances of war have occurred since his plans to pursue the forces of the attacks have been enacted should suggest he was doing right at least in terms of national security. He was financially liberal and obviously dumped a lot of our economy away. But I would say he was a key role in preventing their furthered assertion on us.

Also, any list without the earlier version of Obama, Jimmy Carter, in the bottom five, is totally biased.

And what good is imagination if you can't think logistically? And what good is intellectual capacity when it isn't reached.

I hear professors rave about Wilson having a "first class mind". What that means in academic circles is that he has high intellectual capacity and is imaginitive. The real strength of Wilson was that he was able to discipline that area to let logistical contemplation occur enough. It enabled greater potential to be plausible.

However, Obama does not actually make progress in his consideration. He does not think logistically. He is too concerned with promoting liberalism that he doesn't actually figure out how he might impliment it. He is not discerning. Thus, he is not a good leader. But, again, he can qualify as a talking head because of his people skills.

He is quite stupid for being so "imaginitive" and for having such a strong intellect.

Haha. This is one more instance of how biased and dillusional "scholars" are. Obama hasn't done anything good. All he does is assure people he is going to do what he can to take care of what's urgent. But, what he can do is nothing. He doesn't know how to do anything. He's incompetant. However, he knows how to read people; therefore, he is a talking head.

They just like him because he believes in the poor ideas academia has swayed them to into wanting to believe.

He does not understand how to accomplish anything. He doesn't know how to think logistically. He doesn't know how to think outside of the impulsive, fantasy moralism so many share. He's a would-be liberal theocrat. But, hey, what person in academia isn't?

No. I don't enjoy any sort of commentary when the commentators aren't very smart people. I know they're comedy shows, but when the majority of humor is unrelated or poorly-formed ideas, I can't have any respect for their work. Having the smartest dumb person doesn't make for an engaging experience..

Also, Beck is a little crazy. But it's mostly intensity. The only reason people make fun of Beck is because he makes strong claims that conflict with the massive echo chamber that academia initiates.

[QUOTE="JayneDee"]I should imagine it's something to do with the fact we are the only creature to create things and we have self awareness which most animals don't.Engrish_Major

It can be objectively tested. It's just that, like with every other phenomena in question, you have to catch the appropriate behavior and be of the mind to draw some extent of the right inference. The problem with self-awareness in animals is that it almost always requires examining another animal's behavior to actually draw reflection on one's self.

For instance, one of my cats didn't seem to become aware of some form of reasoning or understanding of how things work until he carefully observed the socializing of the other cats in his neighborhod. I guess the self-awareness comes when contemplating practicality. Because then once they can understand some standard of it, they start associating certain outward displays to certain responses, if they're smart.

It really takes a lot of urgency and self-preservation to be able to see if the animal will be provoked to the realization.

My title probably doesn't have the correct connotation, but here's what I mean: How come we [humans] are so quick to say things like we're not animals? I mean sure, we're of higher intelligence but we have the same basic functions as other organisms in the kingdom of Animalia, so I don't understand our problems with identifying with our supposed common ancestors. Just some food for thought (even though it's a question :P).Drakebunny

Because those who say it don't consider behavior and largely only superficially look at appearance. Most people don't think on a higher level than some animals (ie intuitive and/ or emotional responses on the basis of their natural inclinations). They show the same patterns as animals in many ways.

But, none the less, people think they're not animals because others of their kind do all the thinking for them...

Ghostrider.

Anything with a script that Nicholas Cage likes in inherently shiddy.

[QUOTE="SeanDog123"]Easy solution, get rich. Honestly I didn't finish reading your post because it didn't make sense. It's not like money determines your happiness.SgtKevali

Easy solution? If it's so easy then why are there poor people who work their ass off and are not rich?

Easy--working hard in of itself never did anything for anyone. You work where the money is. Period. If money isn't there, working hard is just you using energy.

It's more of a simple solution than easy, although, the poor people can't figure it out anyways....