Usually politics is a "topic" out of my menu, but is quite surprising, like how political intelligence flat on idiotically(ness), you compose a debate for "Monkeys remove fleas of each other", the candidate that wins for sure, is the one "in this case Michelle Bachman", since even showing intelligence (in fact don't need it, it is not a requirement for a presidential candidate being intelligent), have demonstrated that "lack of prepare is a weapon", because let the kill each other, you always work in the "vanish fire", nobody can have a "I don't know in a presidential debate", it is out of question, and also they are not allowed to use a query engine, to resume the facts. It is a principle, but a misc of populism with lack of prepare, and a lot of applause's, you are a candidate, the thing is prepared and an applause is a "must". So by the end, who just say, "I don't like him" is the winner, mainly because is a lawyer, I will repeat all time, Lawyers "is a" licensed larcener, intelligent for sure, but doesn't have the requirements for a presidential chair. Priests are mad, they really believe on agreements between "gods and devils", neither gods neither devils please, both are idiots, one by excess other by lack, you can't trust in an individual that behaves like a dipole, all time having such "antagonism on speech", the actor, well Perry is an actor, seems that came from some grave of the 40-50's, a cowboy that look more a "unprepared red neck that someone brush his tooth at morning and prepare his meal". So the obvious the most dumb individual is the correct choice, that is why for example, Eric Schimidt is the Google Chairman, for the biggest position "the most stupid". And you see this among politics, companies, even on religion, "God is an idiot" if you consider the view of the "chosen", what we can say, he gave some 'intelligence' for an unprepared race, that will extinguish in few decades, and with this are creating hypothesis about "hyper brains", "alternative energies", and "where is the problem exactly"? Logic, problem remains on logic, to be more precise "logic and choice", all "good interpretations" are presumed to be ruled by "logic and choice", when in matter of fact is just a choice. For example you pick a tool, without look "what compose the tool", or "who compose it", and with this "By logic and choice" you try to prove by "A + B" that such tool is the best case scenario that you will have on certain situation that you have delineated as "some sort of information space". The choice was the problem "Obama Care", like, if you have a giant deficit "attack what is good is not the problem", and shows that 'a fat belly' that idealize 'billionaires as their heroes', does not understand that 'process costs' actually are being more expensive that the treatment and with this 'you collapse a system' that infect never existed, main over if 'public sector' on such 'topic' never existed, and taxes disappear at the speed of the light, then you invent money, create jobs and tell everybody that some 'currency war' exists, coordinating central banks in a scam name 'gadgets, trade and bad food'. Like eat shit and good food is the same thing, no it is not 'good food is something very rare actually', hygienic behavior was forgotten on space and time, but sad moments, the interviewer asks "poor not poverty", like who choose the interviewer, the candidate lost his cadence, because seems that he understood the gag, you finish poverty not the poor, in fact you became poor not by your choice usually by others choice, the thing is perfect explainable, for some, articulation means nothing, because for their selves are hard to coordinate macro and infinitesimal analysis at same time, it is complex involves a lot of people, not everybody knows the answer so what to do. "Sit and Watch, (if you have patience for that)".
