• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which VP is more intelligent?

Which VP is more intelligent?


  • Total voters
    36
Not only are you demonizing liberalism, but you are claiming HOW liberals define their position on issues. Sorry. You are in NO position to do that. Everything I see above is nothing but an extreme version of an issue and an assumption that you cannot prove.

I can define liberalism as I see it based on the positions the supposed liberals take on this board. If you support more government control over individuals' economic choices you have to claim that the government is in a better position to make those decisions than the individuals
 
Hitler was more intelligent than Dick & Joe combined. Doesnt mean thet he was GOOD. And Im NOT saying Dick wasnt good or Joe wasnt good. Im saying intelligence with WISDOM is quite important.

I don't recall anyone claiming HItler was very bright.
 
I can define liberalism as I see it based on the positions the supposed liberals take on this board. If you support more government control over individuals' economic choices you have to claim that the government is in a better position to make those decisions than the individuals

Or in a better position than the banks (which are coincidentally only there because of government).
 
I don't recall anyone claiming HItler was very bright.

I'll say it, Hitler was freaking smart as hell. He was great at manipulating large amounts of people, but he was also one of the most evil people to ever live. You can admire certain traits of a person while abhoring other traits of the same person, and decide independently on whether the person was good or bad.
 
I can define liberalism as I see it based on the positions the supposed liberals take on this board.

You can define liberalism any way you want. That does not make your definition accurate. If I call a duck a groundhog, it's still a duck.

If you support more government control over individuals' economic choices you have to claim that the government is in a better position to make those decisions than the individuals

No, you don't have to make that claim. YOU may think so, but that is nothing but your opinion.
 
Basic gun control is absolutely necessary, and it'd be good if we could prevent guns above a certain caliber from being in public hands without special permits. For example, I'd rather not see my neighbor walking around with an M60, or something as powerful as that; a good idea would be requiring a special permit for guns that can penetrate body armor.

Nearly all hunting rifles will penetrate body armor, and I have no interest in getting a permit for my rifles...

Besides, if you don't intend to harm me or my family, you don't need body armor to come to my house any way.
 
"If you support more government control over individuals' economic choices you have to claim that the government is in a better position to make those decisions than the individuals "


No, you don't have to make that claim. YOU may think so, but that is nothing but your opinion.

Ok, I'll play. If you support more government control over individuals' economic choices and it is not because you believe the government is in a better position to make those decisions, then what is the alternative reason to support the additional controls? Any other reasons I can think of are much more sinister...
 
Ok, I'll play. If you support more government control over individuals' economic choices and it is not because you believe the government is in a better position to make those decisions, then what is the alternative reason to support the additional controls? Any other reasons I can think of are much more sinister...

To pay for services that assist in running the government and for needed services for society itself.
 
To pay for services that assist in running the government and for needed services for society itself.


Additional control over individuals' economic choices is not needed to pay for essential services. I would agree that power is money, to a certain extent, but you can't pay for services or buy food for the needy with power.
 
I can define liberalism as I see it based on the positions the supposed liberals take on this board.


Yes, you do have that freedom.



thanks to the effects of liberal political philosophy that has resulted in our acceptance of this basic assumption.
 
Or in a better position than the banks (which are coincidentally only there because of government).

there are lots of banks-no one is killed or put in prision by a bank
and claiming that because some government is good more government is better is a specious argument
 
Yes, you do have that freedom.



thanks to the effects of liberal political philosophy that has resulted in our acceptance of this basic assumption.

ah the changing definition of liberalism

current liberals have very little in common with the founders who established that right. its current liberals who destroy conservative newspapers at places like Dartmouth, try to heckle into silence speakers like Ann Coulter, or want to impose the "fairness doctrine" on talk radio

I am far closer to a real liberal than the parasitic statist reactionary lefties who claim that title currently
 
there are lots of banks-no one is killed or put in prision by a bank
and claiming that because some government is good more government is better is a specious argument

I'm not arguing that. What I am saying, as you pointed out, is that some government is good. In a few instances, you can say more government is necessary, or marginally better, but government's additional utiles diminism quite quickly, so there is a pretty realistic limit on government.
 
Dick Cheney evil genius

Joe Biden evil nickumpoop
 
Really - this isn't even close.
Cheney by 6 furlongs.
 
I should quantify my answer. Intelligence is relative. I guess I could buy into into Cheney being more intellectually aware. I would also add that he is more ethically challenged. Additionally, he has less of an intellectual moral understanding of the plight of others.
 
I should quantify my answer. Intelligence is relative. I guess I could buy into into Cheney being more intellectually aware. I would also add that he is more ethically challenged. Additionally, he has less of an intellectual moral understanding of the plight of others.

I am no great fan of either man. But I am surprised by the amount of people who seem to accept the public caricature painted by stereotypes and the news media. How well do you personally know this ethically challenged sod? ;) And what on earth is an "intellectual moral understanding"?
 
10 Cheney, 1 Biden.

The sole Biden vote? Disneydude.

Seriously, was there ever a doubt?
Maybe they have something in common.
 
snbl11225 said:
I should quantify my answer. Intelligence is relative. I guess I could buy into into Cheney being more intellectually aware. I would also add that he is more ethically challenged. Additionally, he has less of an intellectual moral understanding of the plight of others.

Oh, cut the crap. If you're just so liberal that you can't look objectively about a specific trait, then just say so. This isn't about ethos, perceived morality, or who you like/believe in. You're just trying to skirt around, meander, and red herring yourself to a pick based on your political belief.

So seriously, shut up with the "moral understanding" and "ethically questionable" babble. The thread is not about jargon. If you're going to have a partisan vote, at least have the guts to say so. Otherwise you just look like a liberal patsy.
 
I did not respond because of media stereotypes. If you look at Cheney you will find that he was leading the charge for our involvement in Iran. My issue is his inability to state his true intentions which had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Read his publications prior to be VP and you will find that he, along with several others within the administration, wrote that it was important to invade Iraq. Futher, when you look at the involvement of his oil company in Iraq, with no competitive bid, you cannot believe that it did not have undertones of corruption. Secondly, though I do question Biden inability to speak before thinking, I question Cheney's inability to show honest concern and understanding of everyday Americans. And that is also a form of intelligence which Biden scores high. You may not like my use of the language but you cannot deny the are varying types of intelligence.
 
"Emotional intelligence" is just a makeshift phrase made by ivory tower psychologists. You can try and differentiate all you want; it changes nothing. Is Cheney a moral man? No, probably not. Is he a shrewd businessman? Without question. Is Biden an amicable fellow? Sure. Is he demonstrably intelligent? Far from.

You're still looking at this microcosmically based on who you "like". This isn't about who is less corrupt or who appeals to people better. It's about a rather object raw measure.
 
Sometimes I think it may be better to have the "comic relief" than the guy who is morally bankrupt (and whom we are finding out did a lot of underhanded, dirty, borderline illegal things while in office).

But having said that...since the question was intelligence. Ill go with Cheney. He may be a lot of things, but you have to be intelligent to pull off some of the things he did while in office.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom