|
Real0ne -> RE: Guilty Verdict in Obama Trial (5/23/2010 11:55:56 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
I believe T is quite correct RO; you do not appear to have learned the first lesson of dealing as an adult with grown up things - that is to say what you mean to say, not because its clever or cool to say but because it serves your purpose, which you rarely state or even allude to, and otherwise to say nothing. This is a difficult skill to learn and to practise, requiring not only intelligence but also a keen understanding of human nature and a degree of skill as an actor.
I know that tends to drive people crazy because they cannot peg me to a specific agenda and put me in a cute little box they can easily deal with. I think on my feet not cut and paste.
Of course this requires a degree of dishonesty one might say, but in truth it is only the sort of method employed by any good poker player; the rules still apply to the game after all. And of course it can be employed for dishonest and subversive as well as honest and noble ends but again the rules of the game still apply and one can be as clever as one likes and can manage, and fraud is still fraud (but only of course on conviction - which is all the more likely if you dont understand when to speak, what to say when you do and when to shut up).
On the contrary it requires truth, knowing when to shut up is another story and the truth is I stumbled onto what is perceived as sacred grounds, and when that happens the shit invariably hits the fan.
I find there are two ways to practise it. The first is suited to those in politics and the professions whereby one must play the part of one so knowledgeable that one's words appear tempered by one's position. This works for those in such positions because of the implicit trust others have in them but presents the challenge of having to maintain that trust in the long term and not getting caught out when one audience finds out what the other audience was told. If it can be pulled off over a long period though, this method offers enormous rewards.
So you advocate the practice of political dishonesty for appearance sake?
The second is suited to the rest of us for the most part and is the one I practise for the most part because it suits my purposes very well - that is to present and come across as a bit of a buffoon; the audience is lulled into a false sense of superiority and yet is irrevocably led by their own stupidity or greed to where I want them, where a coup de grace can be elegantly delivered and they never knew what happened. On this count I will admit I may have misjudged you because so far you have dodged enough not to be led to such an end, but understanding what may be going on and being able to employ the same method competently yourself are not the same thing.
No dodged is completely incorrect position. I make statements and on occasion for the more difficult ares post shit right out of the law books. If people fail to see that it has validation there is nothing I can do to change that. If people wish to call it dodging when I correct them when they are wrong in their attempts to peg my position that is not dodging but accuracy, and I am sure this explanation will be taken for a dodge LOL. [;)]
The second lesson you have not yet learned as it would appear is that others employ such methods often, and that it is vital to assume they are far cleverer than you think they are and to measure your employment of such methods accordingly.
Well of course measuring methods rather than the data proposed always results in false conclusions.
However clever we may think we are, there are at least several million alive now who are cleverer than we are.
Surely I wont disagree with that.
One must weigh up one's opponent - which is why acting the buffoon works well - if they see through it then one is dealing with a worthy opponent one must assume. One must raise one's bluff to the next level and see if they follow - sooner or later it will become clear what one is dealing with and act accordingly - proceeding or breaking off the engagement (because its vital to pick your battles and not be manipulated yourself into battle when and where you dont want to).
Yeh but I dont mind things drifting offtopic if it looks like it would be fun to go there :)
And overall one must apply reason and clear thinking. I'm afraid you fail repeatedly in this area. If you cannot answer a simple question as to how long Obama will be 44th President, this is demonstrated clearly, let alone by the fragmentary and misunderstood elements of law you continue to present. Now it could be that you are adopting the buffoon methodology, but I seriously doubt it, and if you were you would not be doing so at all competently for you are leading no one to anywhere except disbelief at you - if that is your unstated end then well done, but I doubt it is.
It is your apparent failures in all these areas that will lead you to crash and burn in all this; "the government" wont need to come get you or "deal" with you, for you will deliver yourself up into their hands sooner or later. And dont for goodness' sake think that anyone will be coming to the rescue of the thousands or millions of others like you unless they truly are stupid and wish to deliver themselves up too.
E
Well that is good to know.
So then you admit that the people in america really are slaves to the so called guv?
I would have a hard time disagreeing with that assessment.
On the other hand several in here have completely side stepped my points to move forward with their agenda.
Posting the vital statistics records does no validate the record.
No matter how you want to present it, what I said remains the determining factor in the case.
No one has presented a fact my means of substantial forensic account of the BC.
Translated that means a doctors signature and the complete hospital records in support and validation of the vital record.
Anything less frankly is just plain good ole fashioned bullshit.
|
|
|
|
