So what's worse, the GOP picking a dullard, or a smart woman acting dumb to pander to what they consider to be their base - well dontcha know, i'm just a hockey mom and i can't wait to get back to my tractor and read the bible. Why would education and intellectual pursuits be considered negatives? This is not Buckley's GOP.
Why would education and intellectual pursuits be considered negatives?
They're not. It's the elitist better-than-you assholery as projected by Brooks, Noonan, Parker, et al. that's the negative. Huh. Come to think of it, it's exactly those types building and propping up the "Palin supporter anti-intellectual" straw man.
"Why would education and intellectual pursuits be considered negatives?"
"It's the elitist better-than-you assholery as projected by Brooks, Noonan, Parker, et al."
And thus begins the battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Bon Chance, mes amis.
Tell you what, Kevin, when the Sarah Palins of the world, along with the people that think she is even remotely intelligent enough and qualified to be Vice President or President get kicked out on their ass, I will seriously consider voting for some Republicans. The OCP (Original Conservative Platform) has plenty of merits indeed.
Mark, you are so full of it. You cannot simultaneously think that Obama is qualified for President and Palin is unqualified for VP. It is not logical or consistent.
However, I am curious as to what exactly someone of your rather socialist leanings feels is the Original Conservative Platform.
"You cannot simultaneously think that Obama is qualified for President and Palin is unqualified for VP"
Did Sara Palin travel around the world with Richard Lugar to search for loose nukes? Did Sara Palin act as mentee to said Republican Senator? Does Sara Palin sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?
Take a look at their educational backgrounds
Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in
International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism
Now, I want you to imagine if these resumes were reversed. Who do you think would be more qualified?
Mark (the liar),
What you miss (likely intentionally) is that to most of us outside the educational system, education is a only part of background and qualification. And not even that major of a part.
There's a reason that your resume has 1 or 3 lines for "Education", and 3 pages of "Experience."
Markadoofus, you have an education sufficient to qualify you, at least on paper, to teach at the high school level. That doesn't mean you are capable of it. Your demonstrations of inability to think, to reason, to search for facts, and so on, and so on, and so on, all demonstrate that you aren't, in my unhumble opinion, qualified to teach anything at any school. Perhaps you should be a door greeter at Wal Mart.
So, formal education alone is not sufficient to indicate suitability for employment by the people.
Now, compare the two candidates' actual experiences being employed by the people.
1: Obama has never faced a real election until this one. The Chicago machine got his opposition removed when he ran for state senate and so he ultimately ran unopposed.
Palin ran against opposition from her own party and against an entrenched and heavily defended incumbent for gubnor and won.
Summary: Obama did not demonstrate ability, Palin did.
2: Obama, as a one-term state senator, voted "present" 135 times. Voting present is a cop-out, a refusal to make a committment, and is the precise opposite of leadership. As a one-term US senator, Obama served for 143 days before ignoring the Senate to run full-time for President. His legislative record is paper-thin and shows nothing of any consequence. His administrate experience is zero.
Palin, as an employee of gubmint, resigned to protest corruption, then ran for gubnor in opposition to corruption, and won. Palin, as a one-term gubnor, has taken on her own party to root out and eliminate corruption, and has been successful at doing so.
Summary: Obama has not exhibited any leadership abilities as a legislator, indeed he has deliberately avoided doing so. Palin is a born leader who gets things done.
3: Obama has zero foreign policy experience, save a trip into the wild to make it appear otherwise. Making a speech in Berlin but refusing to meet with wounded US soldiers while there is nothing but circus showmanship.
Palin has worked with foriegn countries to enable a huge pipeline to be built across the US border, and successfully concluded said negotiations on her terms.
Summary: Obama has no real foreign policy experience. Palin does.
4: Obama has zero military experience. Given his past admitted associations with Marxists and terrorists, and his admitted preferences for such people as his friends (read his books for verification, as he admits this openly therein), he is not qualified to receive a secret security clearance. He would not be allowed to work in any defense industry establishment. (Been there, done that, and know whereof I write.)
Palin is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. The ONLY National Guard unit on permanent active duty is the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard. As a result, Palin is routinely briefed on classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism.
Summary: Obama has no qualifications that make him suitable to be Commander-In-Chief, and many that ought to disqualify him. Palin already IS Commander-In-Chief of active duty forces. Indeed, Palin is routinely briefed on matters which Obama is not qualified for a security clearance to know.
Summary: There are many aspects that ought to be considered when comparing these two candidates' suitability for office. As usual, you simply ignore those you don't like and tout those you do. You still don't understand that any explanation has to take into account ALL the relevant facts successfully, else it cannot be either correct or complete. The above list is by no means complete, but it serves to illustrate your dishonesty once again.
Given that you are a proven liar, all this isn't surprising.
Markadelphia brings up their respective education backgrounds. Interestingly 9-10 semesters is about what I would expect for a bachelors degree with that many transfers because there are always going to be credits that don't transfer. Clearly she didn't fail many if any of her classes.
I've worked at a University for over 20 years and I'll tell you from vast personal experience that an advanced education/ degree doesn't mean you necessarily have a shred of common sense. Go blow your smoke up someone else's arse.
Here we see one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issue between the left and the right. Based on these responses (and I could be and hope that I am wrong), all of you would rather have a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world. In other words, it is belief first, knowledge second...which explains why you all think Palin is great...or at least DJ does.
This is exactly why our country is in a complete shambles now. Belief is more important than intellect. Fervent belief adheres to propaganda such as the widely held, and totally erroneous belief, that our education system turns students into Marxists.
Remember the two outlets of information that one must destroy in order to exert control over a population?
I don't quite get what you're griping about. That describes the Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman/ wing of the Republican Party to a tee. Ability, Intellect, Competence...none of it matter. If you adhere to the rigid belief system, you are golden.
Stick with the George Wills, PJ O'Rourkes, Charles Krauthammer, and Kathleen Parkers of the world and then you might be on to something. Find a candidate that is as intelligent as them and I might vote for them. Continue to put up people like Bush, Bachmann and Palin and well...say bye bye to the party of elephants.
You don't get the fucking hypocrisy with saying the people on this blog are more concerned with belief than intellect or fact?
Jesus christ, man. I minored in mathematics and I can't even COUNT the number of blatant lies and lack of responses you've given TIME AFTER TIME of being presented with evidence.
The INSTANT something here turns away from anything even resembling subjective "my candidate is smarter" banter (by the way, did you even refute ONE thing DJ said? No? Couldn't give ANY evidence against it? No?), you disappear.
I don't if it's can't or won't get it. You can take a statement of Mark's and completely disassemble it, refute it point by point, and he still projects his unwillingness to look at the truth of the matter as our "faith over intellect". It's like trying to teach a pig to sing, an exercise in futility.
Our country is in a shambles now largely because of the intellectual dishonesty of the left, and the fact that they will gleefully sell out our national security and economic prosperity for the acquisition of political power. There is no dicussion of the issues like adults, we are at fault because we dare to question their superior wisdom. No matter that socialism is a dismal and sometimes catostrophic failure, it hasn't been tried hard enough yet. No matter that the Bill Ayers of the world have actually discussed killing 25 million US citizens in re-education camps because they disagree. No matter that every communist society cannot brook dissent. We are the problem because we are "fascists". The cognitive dissonence of the left and the projection of their ideas on us because that's what they would do is baffling. They are guilty of the very things they accuse us of. Myopia describes it physically, the mental aspect is tougher without getting closer to describing it as an illness.
I always thought Bob Godwin over at One Cosmos did a bang-up job with his description:
At this point in time, I am more inclined to think of leftism as an intellectual pathology rather than a psychological one (although there is clearly considerable overlap). What I mean is that it is impossible to maintain a priori that a conservative person is healthier or more emotionally mature than a liberal. There are plenty of liberals who believe crazy things but are wonderful people, and plenty of conservatives who have the right ideas but are rotten people. However, this may be begging the question, for it is still puzzling why people hold beliefs that are demonstrably untrue or at the very least unwise.
One of the problems is with our elites. We are wrong to think that the difficulty lies in the uneducated and unsophisticated masses--as if inadequate education, in and of itself, is the problem. As a matter of fact, no one is more prone to illusions than the intellectual. It has been said that philosophy is simply personal error on a grandiose scale. Complicating matters is the fact that intellectuals are hardly immune to a deep emotional investment in their ideas, no less than the religious individual. The word "belief" is etymologically linked to the word "beloved," and it is easy to see how certain ideas, no matter how dysfunctional--for example, some of the undeniably appealing ideas underpinning contemporary liberalism--are beloved by those who believe them. Thus, many liberal ideas are believed not because they are true, but because they are beautiful. Then, the intellectual simply marshals their intelligence in service of legitimizing the beliefs that they already hold. It has long been understood by psychoanalysts that for most people, reason is the slave of the passions.
(F)or the person who is not under the hypnotic psycho-spiritual spell of contemporary liberalism, it is strikingly devoid of actual religious wisdom or real ideas. As such, it is driven by vague, spiritually infused ideals and feelings, such as "sticking up for the little guy," or "war is not the answer." On the other hand, conservatism is not so much based on ideas, but on simply observing what works, and then generalizing from there. It is actually refreshingly free of dogma, and full of dynamic tension. For example, at the heart of conservatism is an ongoing, unresolvable dialectic between freedom and virtue. In other words, there is a bedrock belief in the idea that free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources and to create wealth and prosperity for all, but a frank acknowledgment that, without a virtuous populace, the system may produce a self-centered, materialistic citizenry living in a sort of degenerate, "pitiable comfort." Thus, there is an ongoing, unresolvable tension between the libertarian and traditional wings of the movement.
There is no such dynamic tension in liberalism. Rather, it is a top-down dogma that is not dictated by what works, but by how liberals would like reality to be. This is why liberalism must be enforced with the mechanism of political correctness, in order to preempt or punish those who deviate from liberal dogma, and see what they are not supposed to see.
"Did Sara Palin travel around the world with Richard Lugar to search for loose nukes? Did Sara Palin act as mentee to said Republican Senator? Does Sara Palin sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?"
_____________________________________
God, you act like Obama was George Clooney in "The Peacemaker", saving the world from nuclear armed terrorists.
He wrote a law that passed with a voice vote. An absolutely noncontroversial law that I could have just as easily gotten written and passed. Oh, and then he started running for President.
I just don't get why the Left can't just concede the point on experience. It's obvious to anyone that McCain has more experience in every single field imaginable. As for the constant slurs against Sarah Palin, the woman has quite an impressive record of political accomplishment, especially when you consider that her husband was not a Governor turned President, but a snowmobile racer. She has gotten to where she is in life based on her own merit, not on powerful local patrons or familial connections.
As for Senate experience...well, let me show you a video.
Also note that Team Obama began his Presidential campaign in Iowa *the very same month* that he became a US Senator.
That fact alone suggests that he never had any intention of taking the job seriously.
"Based on these responses (and I could be and hope that I am wrong), all of you would rather have a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world."
I'm not going to waste time arguing that point, other than to point out that 1) she is running for VICE President, Obama is not, and 2) even if she were at the top of the ticket, if given the choice between "a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world" and one who has a lot of education and more knowledge of the world, *but has demonstrated repeatedly beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn't give a tinker's damn about anyone who does not support or advance his own ambitions*.... yeah, I gotta admit, given those choices, I'd rather be led by the dumbass hick. At least the dumbass hick might CARE.
And lest you try to claim that Obama DOES, in fact, care, let me refer you to Joe the Plumber. Obama has TALKED about caring, about healing, about bringing people together. Indeed, he based his entire campaign on being the only one running who cares. But when *he picked out* someone and then found out they disagreed with him (an very unlikely Republican plant, since Obama went to Joe, not the other way around), what happened? He stood by and let his surrogates do all they could to destroy his life. And did NOTHING. Has he even spoken out against the illegal access of government records? If so, tell me where and when, or link to it if you can.
It seems to me that if you can't be bothered to give a damn about anyone who isn't useful to you, that's not caring. That's nothing more than CYA.
Compare that to John McCain, who wouldn't let HIS OWN CAMPAIGN go after Obama on Jeremiah Wright, even AFTER Obama himself declared Wright to be fair game.
If that's Change(tm), it's a change BACKWARD, to Tammany Hall.
. Fervent belief adheres to propaganda such as the widely held, and totally erroneous belief, that our education system turns students into Marxists.
A true "Critical Thinker" would have asked theirself "Huh. I wonder why, since I've started commenting, that that belief has been utterly cemented in their worldview. I wonder if I've had anything to do with that?"
Based on these responses (and I could be and hope that I am wrong),
Even if you're proven wrong, you'll just lie about it.
all of you would rather have a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world.
You know?
Yes. Yes. FUCKING A' YES.
I would rather have a completely uneducated PRO-AMERICAN than the most "educated" socialist or redistributist.
Given that we've got an educated woman you're slandering - who's dealt with more political adversity than your candidate ever has, who's taken stances, who's had to back her actions, who's made mistakes and admitted them, who also is pro-american, versus someone who's greatest accomplishment is educational. (We think. He won't talk about Columbia.)
Results, Mark. What you fail to understand. RESULTS AND CREDIBILITY MATTER MORE THAN WORDS AND SLOGANS.
All you can do is chant the slogans. Palin's an experienced politician. One who's actually worked and successfully brought about CHANGE.
In other words, it is belief first, knowledge second...which explains why you all think Palin is great...or at least DJ does.
No, Mark.
Credibility. It all stems back to Credibility. You don't understand this, which is why you fail with us. A good lie is better than a bad fact to you.
Obama's been dishonest from his first foray onto the national stage, looking back in his career, it is is career.
We're not singing hosannas to John McCain. We don't even like John McCain, you ravening dittohead. But he's credible. He's honest. He'll screw us over.
We're not ignoring his record - we've been the ones attacking him on it.
Who's got "Faith", Mark? Those of us who are going (try) to elect a politically-warty, barely-conservative, icon of the RINO?
Or you who deny, refuse and lie about the facts? Who deny that The Chosen Obama has any flaws, that he's done things he never actually has, that he's courageously acted in ways he's never acted... And that he'll actually do it once he's elected. (To a job, that if he runs for re-election at the end of his first term, will be the longest he's ever spent in a job.)
Here we see one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issue between the left and the right. Based on these responses (and I could be and hope that I am wrong), all of you would rather have a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world. In other words, it is belief first, knowledge second...which explains why you all think Palin is great...or at least DJ does.
So speaks the person here who has no grasp of elementary economics.
I do not know where you earned your degree, but I would not consider it "education".
I think it came in a box of Crackerjacks, along with a Sooper Seekrit Magic Decoder Ring.
Actually, I might have more respect for him if he had a mail-order degree. At least then he wouldn't be stupid enough to waste 4 years and the price of a good new car on knowledge he could've gotten for a couple hundred dollars of library late fees.
Maybe there was a "homing chip" in the crakerjacks that when bitten, activates and burrows through to deactivate the part of the brain responsible for logical thinking. :)
Eagle 1
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/10/quote-of-day_27.html (28 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
So what's worse, the GOP picking a dullard, or a smart woman acting dumb to pander to what they consider to be their base - well dontcha know, i'm just a hockey mom and i can't wait to get back to my tractor and read the bible. Why would education and intellectual pursuits be considered negatives? This is not Buckley's GOP.
So hockey, tractors, and bibles are "dumb"? Um-hm, sure...
Biden? The Stupidest Man in the Sentate (And That's Saying Something)?
M
And Alger, the Spelling King of Ohio?
M
Why would education and intellectual pursuits be considered negatives?
They're not. It's the elitist better-than-you assholery as projected by Brooks, Noonan, Parker, et al. that's the negative. Huh. Come to think of it, it's exactly those types building and propping up the "Palin supporter anti-intellectual" straw man.
"Why would education and intellectual pursuits be considered negatives?"
"It's the elitist better-than-you assholery as projected by Brooks, Noonan, Parker, et al."
And thus begins the battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Bon Chance, mes amis.
Tell you what, Kevin, when the Sarah Palins of the world, along with the people that think she is even remotely intelligent enough and qualified to be Vice President or President get kicked out on their ass, I will seriously consider voting for some Republicans. The OCP (Original Conservative Platform) has plenty of merits indeed.
Mark, you are so full of it. You cannot simultaneously think that Obama is qualified for President and Palin is unqualified for VP. It is not logical or consistent.
However, I am curious as to what exactly someone of your rather socialist leanings feels is the Original Conservative Platform.
Britt:
Don't worry too much about Mark. He's a liar.
It's a fair bet that whatever Mark tells you is the truth is the exact opposite.
Well. I guess we know which side of that divide Markadelphia falls on.
"You cannot simultaneously think that Obama is qualified for President and Palin is unqualified for VP"
Did Sara Palin travel around the world with Richard Lugar to search for loose nukes? Did Sara Palin act as mentee to said Republican Senator? Does Sara Palin sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?
Take a look at their educational backgrounds
Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in
International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism
Now, I want you to imagine if these resumes were reversed. Who do you think would be more qualified?
Take a look at their educational backgrounds
Mark (the liar),
What you miss (likely intentionally) is that to most of us outside the educational system, education is a only part of background and qualification. And not even that major of a part.
There's a reason that your resume has 1 or 3 lines for "Education", and 3 pages of "Experience."
Well, mine does, anyway.
"Take a look at their educational backgrounds"
Markadoofus, you have an education sufficient to qualify you, at least on paper, to teach at the high school level. That doesn't mean you are capable of it. Your demonstrations of inability to think, to reason, to search for facts, and so on, and so on, and so on, all demonstrate that you aren't, in my unhumble opinion, qualified to teach anything at any school. Perhaps you should be a door greeter at Wal Mart.
So, formal education alone is not sufficient to indicate suitability for employment by the people.
Now, compare the two candidates' actual experiences being employed by the people.
1: Obama has never faced a real election until this one. The Chicago machine got his opposition removed when he ran for state senate and so he ultimately ran unopposed.
Palin ran against opposition from her own party and against an entrenched and heavily defended incumbent for gubnor and won.
Summary: Obama did not demonstrate ability, Palin did.
2: Obama, as a one-term state senator, voted "present" 135 times. Voting present is a cop-out, a refusal to make a committment, and is the precise opposite of leadership. As a one-term US senator, Obama served for 143 days before ignoring the Senate to run full-time for President. His legislative record is paper-thin and shows nothing of any consequence. His administrate experience is zero.
Palin, as an employee of gubmint, resigned to protest corruption, then ran for gubnor in opposition to corruption, and won. Palin, as a one-term gubnor, has taken on her own party to root out and eliminate corruption, and has been successful at doing so.
Summary: Obama has not exhibited any leadership abilities as a legislator, indeed he has deliberately avoided doing so. Palin is a born leader who gets things done.
3: Obama has zero foreign policy experience, save a trip into the wild to make it appear otherwise. Making a speech in Berlin but refusing to meet with wounded US soldiers while there is nothing but circus showmanship.
Palin has worked with foriegn countries to enable a huge pipeline to be built across the US border, and successfully concluded said negotiations on her terms.
Summary: Obama has no real foreign policy experience. Palin does.
4: Obama has zero military experience. Given his past admitted associations with Marxists and terrorists, and his admitted preferences for such people as his friends (read his books for verification, as he admits this openly therein), he is not qualified to receive a secret security clearance. He would not be allowed to work in any defense industry establishment. (Been there, done that, and know whereof I write.)
Palin is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. The ONLY National Guard unit on permanent active duty is the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard. As a result, Palin is routinely briefed on classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism.
Summary: Obama has no qualifications that make him suitable to be Commander-In-Chief, and many that ought to disqualify him. Palin already IS Commander-In-Chief of active duty forces. Indeed, Palin is routinely briefed on matters which Obama is not qualified for a security clearance to know.
Summary: There are many aspects that ought to be considered when comparing these two candidates' suitability for office. As usual, you simply ignore those you don't like and tout those you do. You still don't understand that any explanation has to take into account ALL the relevant facts successfully, else it cannot be either correct or complete. The above list is by no means complete, but it serves to illustrate your dishonesty once again.
Given that you are a proven liar, all this isn't surprising.
Markadelphia brings up their respective education backgrounds. Interestingly 9-10 semesters is about what I would expect for a bachelors degree with that many transfers because there are always going to be credits that don't transfer. Clearly she didn't fail many if any of her classes.
Mark,
I've worked at a University for over 20 years and I'll tell you from vast personal experience that an advanced education/ degree doesn't mean you necessarily have a shred of common sense. Go blow your smoke up someone else's arse.
Eagle 1
Y'know, I've been reading this blog for a little while...
...I've also been reading Mark's responses and those of DJ, Unix, and Kevin...
...but the last few weeks have been the most beautiful demonstration of why Mark is completely and totally full of shit.
He cannot and will not even attempt to respond for each time his nonsensical crap is put to test.
$^@&ing christ. I have NEVER seen someone so intellectually dishonest over the age of twenty.
Here we see one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issue between the left and the right. Based on these responses (and I could be and hope that I am wrong), all of you would rather have a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world. In other words, it is belief first, knowledge second...which explains why you all think Palin is great...or at least DJ does.
This is exactly why our country is in a complete shambles now. Belief is more important than intellect. Fervent belief adheres to propaganda such as the widely held, and totally erroneous belief, that our education system turns students into Marxists.
Remember the two outlets of information that one must destroy in order to exert control over a population?
"Belief is more important than intellect"
Good fucking god, are you THAT full of shit Mark?
Adam,
I don't quite get what you're griping about. That describes the Sarah Palin/Michelle Bachman/ wing of the Republican Party to a tee. Ability, Intellect, Competence...none of it matter. If you adhere to the rigid belief system, you are golden.
Stick with the George Wills, PJ O'Rourkes, Charles Krauthammer, and Kathleen Parkers of the world and then you might be on to something. Find a candidate that is as intelligent as them and I might vote for them. Continue to put up people like Bush, Bachmann and Palin and well...say bye bye to the party of elephants.
You don't get it?
You don't get the fucking hypocrisy with saying the people on this blog are more concerned with belief than intellect or fact?
Jesus christ, man. I minored in mathematics and I can't even COUNT the number of blatant lies and lack of responses you've given TIME AFTER TIME of being presented with evidence.
The INSTANT something here turns away from anything even resembling subjective "my candidate is smarter" banter (by the way, did you even refute ONE thing DJ said? No? Couldn't give ANY evidence against it? No?), you disappear.
Adam,
I don't if it's can't or won't get it. You can take a statement of Mark's and completely disassemble it, refute it point by point, and he still projects his unwillingness to look at the truth of the matter as our "faith over intellect". It's like trying to teach a pig to sing, an exercise in futility.
Our country is in a shambles now largely because of the intellectual dishonesty of the left, and the fact that they will gleefully sell out our national security and economic prosperity for the acquisition of political power. There is no dicussion of the issues like adults, we are at fault because we dare to question their superior wisdom. No matter that socialism is a dismal and sometimes catostrophic failure, it hasn't been tried hard enough yet. No matter that the Bill Ayers of the world have actually discussed killing 25 million US citizens in re-education camps because they disagree. No matter that every communist society cannot brook dissent. We are the problem because we are "fascists". The cognitive dissonence of the left and the projection of their ideas on us because that's what they would do is baffling. They are guilty of the very things they accuse us of. Myopia describes it physically, the mental aspect is tougher without getting closer to describing it as an illness.
Eagle 1
I always thought Bob Godwin over at One Cosmos did a bang-up job with his description:
At this point in time, I am more inclined to think of leftism as an intellectual pathology rather than a psychological one (although there is clearly considerable overlap). What I mean is that it is impossible to maintain a priori that a conservative person is healthier or more emotionally mature than a liberal. There are plenty of liberals who believe crazy things but are wonderful people, and plenty of conservatives who have the right ideas but are rotten people. However, this may be begging the question, for it is still puzzling why people hold beliefs that are demonstrably untrue or at the very least unwise.
One of the problems is with our elites. We are wrong to think that the difficulty lies in the uneducated and unsophisticated masses--as if inadequate education, in and of itself, is the problem. As a matter of fact, no one is more prone to illusions than the intellectual. It has been said that philosophy is simply personal error on a grandiose scale. Complicating matters is the fact that intellectuals are hardly immune to a deep emotional investment in their ideas, no less than the religious individual. The word "belief" is etymologically linked to the word "beloved," and it is easy to see how certain ideas, no matter how dysfunctional--for example, some of the undeniably appealing ideas underpinning contemporary liberalism--are beloved by those who believe them. Thus, many liberal ideas are believed not because they are true, but because they are beautiful. Then, the intellectual simply marshals their intelligence in service of legitimizing the beliefs that they already hold. It has long been understood by psychoanalysts that for most people, reason is the slave of the passions.
(F)or the person who is not under the hypnotic psycho-spiritual spell of contemporary liberalism, it is strikingly devoid of actual religious wisdom or real ideas. As such, it is driven by vague, spiritually infused ideals and feelings, such as "sticking up for the little guy," or "war is not the answer." On the other hand, conservatism is not so much based on ideas, but on simply observing what works, and then generalizing from there. It is actually refreshingly free of dogma, and full of dynamic tension. For example, at the heart of conservatism is an ongoing, unresolvable dialectic between freedom and virtue. In other words, there is a bedrock belief in the idea that free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources and to create wealth and prosperity for all, but a frank acknowledgment that, without a virtuous populace, the system may produce a self-centered, materialistic citizenry living in a sort of degenerate, "pitiable comfort." Thus, there is an ongoing, unresolvable tension between the libertarian and traditional wings of the movement.
There is no such dynamic tension in liberalism. Rather, it is a top-down dogma that is not dictated by what works, but by how liberals would like reality to be. This is why liberalism must be enforced with the mechanism of political correctness, in order to preempt or punish those who deviate from liberal dogma, and see what they are not supposed to see.
"Did Sara Palin travel around the world with Richard Lugar to search for loose nukes? Did Sara Palin act as mentee to said Republican Senator? Does Sara Palin sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?"
_____________________________________
God, you act like Obama was George Clooney in "The Peacemaker", saving the world from nuclear armed terrorists.
He wrote a law that passed with a voice vote. An absolutely noncontroversial law that I could have just as easily gotten written and passed. Oh, and then he started running for President.
I just don't get why the Left can't just concede the point on experience. It's obvious to anyone that McCain has more experience in every single field imaginable. As for the constant slurs against Sarah Palin, the woman has quite an impressive record of political accomplishment, especially when you consider that her husband was not a Governor turned President, but a snowmobile racer. She has gotten to where she is in life based on her own merit, not on powerful local patrons or familial connections.
As for Senate experience...well, let me show you a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah9W24oMIRc
If that's experience, I'll stick to Palin.
Also note that Team Obama began his Presidential campaign in Iowa *the very same month* that he became a US Senator.
That fact alone suggests that he never had any intention of taking the job seriously.
"Based on these responses (and I could be and hope that I am wrong), all of you would rather have a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world."
I'm not going to waste time arguing that point, other than to point out that 1) she is running for VICE President, Obama is not, and 2) even if she were at the top of the ticket, if given the choice between "a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world" and one who has a lot of education and more knowledge of the world, *but has demonstrated repeatedly beyond a reasonable doubt that he doesn't give a tinker's damn about anyone who does not support or advance his own ambitions*.... yeah, I gotta admit, given those choices, I'd rather be led by the dumbass hick. At least the dumbass hick might CARE.
And lest you try to claim that Obama DOES, in fact, care, let me refer you to Joe the Plumber. Obama has TALKED about caring, about healing, about bringing people together. Indeed, he based his entire campaign on being the only one running who cares. But when *he picked out* someone and then found out they disagreed with him (an very unlikely Republican plant, since Obama went to Joe, not the other way around), what happened? He stood by and let his surrogates do all they could to destroy his life. And did NOTHING. Has he even spoken out against the illegal access of government records? If so, tell me where and when, or link to it if you can.
It seems to me that if you can't be bothered to give a damn about anyone who isn't useful to you, that's not caring. That's nothing more than CYA.
Compare that to John McCain, who wouldn't let HIS OWN CAMPAIGN go after Obama on Jeremiah Wright, even AFTER Obama himself declared Wright to be fair game.
If that's Change(tm), it's a change BACKWARD, to Tammany Hall.
. Fervent belief adheres to propaganda such as the widely held, and totally erroneous belief, that our education system turns students into Marxists.
A true "Critical Thinker" would have asked theirself "Huh. I wonder why, since I've started commenting, that that belief has been utterly cemented in their worldview. I wonder if I've had anything to do with that?"
Based on these responses (and I could be and hope that I am wrong),
Even if you're proven wrong, you'll just lie about it.
all of you would rather have a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world.
You know?
Yes. Yes. FUCKING A' YES.
I would rather have a completely uneducated PRO-AMERICAN than the most "educated" socialist or redistributist.
Given that we've got an educated woman you're slandering - who's dealt with more political adversity than your candidate ever has, who's taken stances, who's had to back her actions, who's made mistakes and admitted them, who also is pro-american, versus someone who's greatest accomplishment is educational. (We think. He won't talk about Columbia.)
Results, Mark. What you fail to understand. RESULTS AND CREDIBILITY MATTER MORE THAN WORDS AND SLOGANS.
All you can do is chant the slogans. Palin's an experienced politician. One who's actually worked and successfully brought about CHANGE.
In other words, it is belief first, knowledge second...which explains why you all think Palin is great...or at least DJ does.
No, Mark.
Credibility. It all stems back to Credibility. You don't understand this, which is why you fail with us. A good lie is better than a bad fact to you.
Obama's been dishonest from his first foray onto the national stage, looking back in his career, it is is career.
We're not singing hosannas to John McCain. We don't even like John McCain, you ravening dittohead. But he's credible. He's honest. He'll screw us over.
We're not ignoring his record - we've been the ones attacking him on it.
Who's got "Faith", Mark? Those of us who are going (try) to elect a politically-warty, barely-conservative, icon of the RINO?
Or you who deny, refuse and lie about the facts? Who deny that The Chosen Obama has any flaws, that he's done things he never actually has, that he's courageously acted in ways he's never acted... And that he'll actually do it once he's elected. (To a job, that if he runs for re-election at the end of his first term, will be the longest he's ever spent in a job.)
Here we see one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issue between the left and the right. Based on these responses (and I could be and hope that I am wrong), all of you would rather have a president who has little education and very little knowledge of the world. In other words, it is belief first, knowledge second...which explains why you all think Palin is great...or at least DJ does.
So speaks the person here who has no grasp of elementary economics.
I do not know where you earned your degree, but I would not consider it "education".
"I do not know where you earned your degree, but I would not consider it "education"."
I think it came in a box of Crackerjacks, along with a Sooper Seekrit Magic Decoder Ring.
I think it came in a box of Crackerjacks, along with a Sooper Seekrit Magic Decoder Ring.
Actually, I might have more respect for him if he had a mail-order degree. At least then he wouldn't be stupid enough to waste 4 years and the price of a good new car on knowledge he could've gotten for a couple hundred dollars of library late fees.
Maybe there was a "homing chip" in the crakerjacks that when bitten, activates and burrows through to deactivate the part of the brain responsible for logical thinking. :)
Eagle 1
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>