Thursday, September 18, 2008

Obama Finally Talks Tough -- Calls for Violence Against Americans

Finally, Barack Obama is talking tough.

Oh, he's not calling for strong measures against terrorists. Obama believes that the terrorists need to be shown more "humility."

Nor did he use his speech in Elko, Nevada to call for tough measures against the Iranian mullahs and their hate-mongering figurehead, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Nope with Mu-mu, Barry plans to allow him to continue to build his nuclear weapons as we sit down and negotiate with him WITHOUT PRE-CONDITIONS. In other words, he can continue to build his bomb while Barry asks him what we've done to make him so sad and what we can give him to make him more glad. You see, Barry thinks the terrorists cling to their beliefs because they're bitter, too. Take away the bitterness by providing them with more guns, money, land, "dignity" etc and then they won't be so sad.

Nor did he use his angry speech filled with half-truths and outright lies to call for a tough stance against the Syrian dictator or the despot who rules North Korea with an iron hand. After all, as a "citizen of the world" Obama is a citizen of North Korea and Syria, too.

Nope, The Anointed One used his talk to 17,000 of the folks who faint at his sight and who get tingles rushing up their legs at the resonance of his voice to call for violence against the same Americans Obama has previously characterized as stupid, bigoted and bitter.

Obama's latest call for physical violence follows a campaign of intimidation ordered by his campaign against radio stations where people knowledgable about his work with terrorists were being interviewed.

Why is Barry resorting to thuggery? Because his "I Am God" routine didn't work, his rhetoric is failing, his multiple attempts to play the race card has seen nothing but people laughing in his face over the usual "I'm a victim" routine of the leftists. Frankly, Obama is calling for physical violence against fellow Americans because that's the way thugs do their business.

The good news is that the effete who support Obama -- the morally and intellectually vapid who swoon at his concerts because he's just so pretty and those who get sexual thrills: those tingles running up their legs just by looking at him -- can't "get in people's faces" because they are cowards. They can key people's cars and break their windows but get face-to-face with real Americans? Think John Edwards going toe-to-toe with Chuck Norris. Think Britney Spears duking it out with Ted Nugent. Think Brad Pitt or Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin versus Sarah Palin. Is there anyone who wouldn't put their money on the Governor to defeat the effete?

253 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 253 of 253
fanfare for a stupid beyotch said...

All Nixon did was exploit the prejudice of the Modern Era. How vile and evil. Like Joyce and/or Copeland.

What evil bastard's THEY were, for flattering us so!

brain dead elitist said...

Oh, I get it, You have a problem with people "thinking" and/or "reasoning" instead of blindly follwing der leaders factual orders.

Ju must follow ze orders! Ze orders are all ze facts ju need to know! Now, get back to vork, mach schnell.

Dora said...

Please, describe for us what a "fact based belief system" is... how it works. Does it use logic? Reason? Then it's not very "fact-based" is it.

Um, yes it is. It uses the scientific method to understand the world around you. So, for example, if there is no evidence of WMD in IRaq or of God's existence, then those things are not to be believed/believed in, until there is sufficient evidence. The burden of proof is always on the proponent. A thing cannot be X and not X at the same time, and other basic logical rules apply.

A couple of things are taken on faith:
- that a world does exist outside of one's own mind
- that logic and the basic axioms of should apply
- that time exists, and passes

Everything else is built from there.

Compare that with the now scientifically-found* conservative tendency to ignore facts, and actually believe a falsehood even more in the face of facts that refute the falsehood. That's not very rational or logical, is it?

So what one does is finds and analyzes facts. That's how it works. It's not that hard, but it requires discipline, and not succumbing to the temptation I have observed many conservatives succumbing to, which is to believe that reality IS how you WISH IT WERE, contrary facts be damned.

* Since most "average-joe" conservatives don't seem to believe in the scientific method, this is irrelevant and unconvincing to them.

Dora said...

FJ, i know it's you, btw :)

All Nixon did was exploit the prejudice of the Modern Era.

What does that EVEN MEAN?!?! lol

How vile and evil. Like Joyce and/or Copeland.

What evil bastard's THEY were, for flattering us so!


Huh, what now about that gay Commie Jew Aaron Copeland?

John said...

And here's me. This makes for an interesting menage. Heads or tails, fj?

midnite for monkeys said...

Show me where da fuck I said they had to have a degree.

And, yas, Dora...I'm sure we can find all kinds of things that work against them. BUT, the first step in finding things that work against the monkey motherfuckers is to STOP DOING THE THINGS THAT DON'T WORK in idiotic, impotent perpetuity.

Then we must get creative and militant...there are some good ideas out there.

m n said...

Jeezus...is there anything more revolting than the lame sexual innuendos of grubby, little rodents like this?

John said...

You go and sit in the corner, and watch.

Anonymous said...

A couple of things are taken on faith:
- that a world does exist outside of one's own mind
- that logic and the basic axioms of should apply
- that time exists, and passes


Well if you MUST take THOSE on faith, why not simply take G_d's existence and the fact that he has our best interest at heart on faith?

Why must I accept the basic tenets of science on "faith" and deny the religious ones? Why can't I accept both as tenets on faith?

Everything else is built from there... Spin your cobwebs in the library of knowledge all you want. LOL!

ps - I believe in the scientific method AND the existence of G_d. They're not incompatible. I simply extend my "faith" to one additional proposition. For unless you do so, the only REAL logical alternative is that "nothing is" rendering all your original propositions and axioms false.... for they are false.

Anonymous said...

FJ, i know it's you, btw :)

Aw, you caught me quoting Nietzsche... and I soooo thought I was going to fool you!

john... as you said, menage.

I mean that the "modern era" has been built on the proposition that the "common man" is the real hero of the ages and that the "elites" need to stop hogging all the credit (it's time for a "fanfare for the common man"). We have reached the "end of history" and we are Nietzsche's "last men" (although progressives try and make "victims" into hero's to allow their elites play at rescuing knights errant - and "errant" is the operative word.)

Anonymous said...

To say that someone with a BS and an MS doesn't believe or have any faith in science is a pretty illogical proposition.

Anonymous said...

ipso facto biteme
Truth is the kind of error without which a certain species of life could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive

Now, you know, ipso, you're only going to get the farmer cranked up. Do you really want that?

Anonymous said...

Shame on you, ipso!

Consciousness.— Consciousness is the last and latest development of the organic and hence also what is most unfinished and unstrong. Consciousness gives rise to countless errors that lead an animal or man to perish sooner than necessary, "exceeding destiny," as Homer puts it. If the conserving association of the instincts were not so very much more powerful, and if it did not serve on the whole as a regulator, humanity would have to perish of its misjudgments and its fantasies with open eyes, of its lack of thoroughness and its credulity—in short, of its consciousness; rather, without the former, humanity would long have disappeared! Before a function is fully developed and mature it constitutes a danger for the organism, and it is good if during the interval it is subjected to some tyranny! Thus consciousness is tyrannized—not least by our pride in it! One thinks that it constitutes the kernel of man; what is abiding, eternal, ultimate, and most original in him! One takes consciousness for a determinate magnitude! One denies it growth and its intermittences! One takes it for the "unity of the organism"!— This ridiculous overestimation and misunderstanding of consciousness has the very useful consequence that it prevents an all too fast development of consciousness. Believing that they possess consciousness, men have not exerted themselves very much to acquire it—and things haven't changed much in this respect! To this day the task of incorporating knowledge and making it instinctive is only beginning to dawn on the human eye and is not yet clearly discernible—a task that is seen only by those who have comprehended that so far we have incorporated only our errors and that all our consciousness relates to errors!

Dora said...

Well if you MUST take THOSE on faith, why not simply take G_d's existence and the fact that he has our best interest at heart on faith?

Because, not only is a belief in god not necessary to explain the world around us, it is also incompatible with the rest of the propositions. Why not believe in unicorns too, after all?

ps - I believe in the scientific method AND the existence of G_d. They're not incompatible.

Yes, they are.

I simply extend my "faith" to one additional proposition. For unless you do so, the only REAL logical alternative is that "nothing is"

Really? why's that?

rendering all your original propositions and axioms false.... for they are false.

They are false? Really? Time doesn't pass? A world doesn't exist outside of your own mind?

Anonymous said...

Because, not only is a belief in god not necessary to explain the world around us, it is also incompatible with the rest of the propositions. Why not believe in unicorns too, after all?

It is not incompatible. In fact it's perfectly compatible.

ps - I believe in the scientific method AND the existence of G_d. They're not incompatible.

Yes, they are.

Prove it.

John said...

I said:

"That's false. The blue states that are the most homegenuous are states like CA, NY, and MA, and even those elected Republican governors--i.e. Schwarznegger, Romney and Pataki ('95-'06).

Well, Vermont's pretty blue through and through.

Anyway, with a very few exceptions, there's no state that has a 'vast majority of liberals' within. You don't know what you're talking about.

The only way you can achieve a 'vast majority' is throughh deportation."

Dora replied:

"you know what? you're right, thanks for pointing this out."

You can always trust me for pointing out the obvious.

"i have no problem with people like Schwartzneger, Olympia Snowe, Mike Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel, Pataki, Greenspan, Sandra Day O'Connor etc."

Right. The RINOs (i.e. "Republicans-In-Name-Only").

I noticed that you peevishly removed McCain off that list, once topping the entree section (at least when he was the anti-Bush candidate in 2000, and before he called for the surge that won the "lost cause" of Iraq).

Which means that his Reaganesque reformation has succeeded splendidly (Reagan himself used to be a Democrat before becoming the patron saint of Republicans).

"I think these people, even though they call themselves conservatives, are reasonable-minded intelligent folks..."

What, "RIFs"? Denial. They're RINOs.

"...with whom I can agree to disagree and still respect."

I'm sure they'll sleep better at night knowing that a liberal Democrat feels that way.

"Romney was this way until he ran for prez (he was pro-choice, pro-gay, normal)."

Obama, too, before he ran for prez (he was pro-post-birth infanticide
and pro-gay "Marriage" until he realized it was abnormal).

"I voted for a Republican once, in Massachusetts."

Because they were a RINO.

You asked:

"The people I really don't like?"

And then repeated:

"I do admit that I really don't like racist, xenophobic, nationalistic white people."

Is that supposed to be some kind of hint?

"And those are the people that mostly live in the red states."

Only if they're Democrats, an unsurprisingly high 1/3 of whom admitted to harboring racist attitudes against blacks by a recent--and respected--poll survey.

"Although now that I think about it..."

Thanks to me.

"...I feel like letting the red states secede would leave a lot of black people back in Jim Crow-ville, and that's just mean."

Don't forget the old white people in Palm Springs at the mercy of Diebold.

And, again, good luck convincing the NY, OH, and PA rednecks to turn in their guns, reycle regularly, and stop going to church.

"I'd open the bluestatia to anyone who wants to come form the red states, of all races and political affiliations. I would not force anyone to stay or to come -- i'd open it to people who want to move to Redstatia."

Yeah. Everyone who wants to pay 50%+ in taxes.

Redstatia's state line will be busier than the border with Mexico with all The People trying to get in!

Blockheaded.

"Something tells me that most blacks in the south would not want to be left alone in a room with a typical southerner."

Or the same neighborhood, for that matter, unless they want to get firehosed and have police dogs unleashed on them, presumably.

Get out of the sixties, Dora.

You quoted:

"Anyway, all of that is also part of what makes you an 'elitist' (i.e. the belief that an advanced diploma or degree automatically makes one superior in knowledge and wisdom on all matters to someone who was a college drop-out but went straight to work and learned things on the field of his/her endeavor that your law professor is oblivious to.

Again, I can't recall you explicitly asserting (that), but the suggestion is implicit when you attack the credibility of anyone on anything you disagree with simply because of formal educational considerations (i.e, yours is bigger than theirs, even if it's just on the study of rhetorical legalese), which I've seen you do often at blogs like Curtains."

You cross-examined:

"john, you've been college, right?"

Haven't you been paying attention?

"what's the value of college?"

Uhhh...24/7 beer on tap in the fraternity house, and eager co-eds?

"what does one learn in college, generally?"

Uhhh...that eager co-eds are easier when 24/7 beer on tap is made available?

(it's empirically true, as proven over and over again by the scientific method)

You disqualified:

"Neither she nor Dubya are regular guys off the street."

I pointed out:

"They ain't elitist liberals, that's for damn sure, and so can appeal to the 'regular guy off the street' (or perhaps the farmland) far more effectively (Hillary's shot-slamming and Barack's flag-pin wearing notwithstanding)."

You au contraired:

"Dubya may not be a liberal, but he's as elitist as possible, my dear."

He's not "elitist." He's belongs to the authentic American aristocracy, i.e. the elite.

I've explained several times now that being "elitist" is not the same as being elite, and to interchange them synonymically is solecistic.

Yet you persist.

Conservatives love the elite among us, whether in business, art, sports, or even dynasty, loving them for their uplifting and inspiring excellence.

The Left does not lke true excellence--the conservative elite-- because it makes their "elites" the sorry mediocrities and outright frauds that they are by comparison.

That's what "levelling the playing field" is all about, so elitists can feel that they're really elite without having to be reminded that they're not by the presence of the elite.

Meanwhile, your shameles, star-stricken crowd treats their elites like royalty-- especially the Kennedy clan of Camelot, where you bottoms-up and swallow favoritism, nepotism, celebrityism, and and genetic succession while toasting that monarchy but remaining tasteless to the credible allegations, documented accusations, and guilty convictions involving reckless whoring, drug abuse, alcoholism, manslaughter, rape, and idiocy as ingredients of that brew, and even toss the shot glass of democracy over your shoulder and out the window after toasting that monarchy), inspiring nothing but giddily-intoxicated servitude to your kings, queens, and the royal brood.

You quoted (vis-a-vis who the true elitist and who truly authentic):

"Puh-lease. Bill 'I-Feel-Your-Pain' Clinton? John 'I'm-The-Son- of-a-Mill-Worker' Edwards? Joe 'I-Ride-Amtrack' Biden?

Barack 'My-Grandmother's-From-Kansas-And-My-Grandfather-Fought-In-WWII' Obama?

They're all just a bunch of Ivy League-trained lawyers-- which, again, certainly gives 'expertise' with the law and rhetorical methods, but often insulates them from the life of the Everyman they then claim to empathize with (between wind-surfing off Nantucket or boogie-boarding in Hawaii)."

Dora pointed out:

"Well, if you take a look at all the people you listed (i.e. Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden), they all came from very humble beginnings and were all self-made."

Yeah, right. They were born in log cabins and climbed to the top by native intelligence, sheer wit, ingenuity, elbow grease, and burning the midnight oil in the entrepreneurial process of conceiving, investing in, developing, and producing a real good and/or service to the country (and maybe the world) as if right out of a Horatio Alger Rags-to-Riches story.

Yeah, right. Those folks are registered Republicans.

Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden have been suckling off the tax-milked teat of government (a.k.a. "public service") before they ever had a real job-- and never would have one.

...unless, of course, you count their brief forays in the legal field fresh out of college and prior to their celebrated debut as career "public servants" real jobs.

Meanwhile, MBA Bush worked in the rough-and-tumble crapshoot of the Texas oil exploration industry, owned and managed a major league baseball team, and even managed to learn how to fly Air Force jets before becoming a popular governor of the Great State of Texas.

Mac's a war hero.

And Palin?

Fuhget about it. She's the most authentic "normal" person of them all, but while shamelessly try to doll up your Democratic senators as ordinary Joes, you viciously attack and disqualify her precisely because she's a real Jane.

You informed:'

"(btw, Edwards and Biden are not Ivy-educated)."

You're nitpicking.

You keep trying:

"It's not a lie for any of them to say they grew up in middle class or lower class circumstances. They really do have that cred."

Right. And Al Gore chewed tobbacy in Tenesseee. And John Kerry is a deer-hunter. And Bill Clinton used to yahoo around in a pick-up truck with astro-turf on it's bed.

Well, Clinton really is a redneck.

"Compare that with McCain or Bush. Bush attended Phillips Andover Prep, then Yale, and then Harvard. He grew up in a dynasty, with poppy Bush being CIA director, VP and then Prez."

And they both properly rebelled against what that status expected of them in their youth, while eschewing the protocols and rote behaviors demanded of them both in Annapolis, Yale, and Harvard, as is proper for true elites in their youth, and very much unlike the unctuous, flattering, brown-nosing, and outright phoniness programmed into young elitist who learned how to play--not buck--the System.

Maverick McCain and Calamity Jane Palin are buckaroos, true outsiders and agents of change--as Dubya also most certainly was, having changed the map (and the skylines of cities from coast-to-coast, as well as in Baghdad and Kabul).

Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden grease the staus quo.

"McCain is a 3rd-generation Navy legacy who was legacied into the Naval Academy, and then married a super-rich heiress."

Every young, red-blooded American male's dream (if not the American one).

I can assure, it's relatable, and worthy of applause (especially since the heiress inherited a fortune made from the distribution of Bud).

"Now tell me, who is more relatable?"

I just did.

You quoted:

"Tell that (RE your claim that McCain and Evan are "unaccomplished") to the prestigious, Washington DC think-tank that invited Evan to speak, and to the Alaskans who thought she was thoughtful and expert enough to govern their vast state."

You mocked:

"As a comedian. Hello?!?!"

It wasn't comic relief, Dora.

suze said...

Well, well, well: The bailout for Paulson:

Conflict Of Interest? Report Says Goldman Sachs ‘Among Biggest Beneficiaries’ Of Paulson’s Bailout

In making his push to administer the largest federal bailout of Wall Street in history, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is seeking unfettered authority. McClatchy poses the question today, “can you trust a Wall Street veteran with a Wall Street bailout?,” referring to Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs:

But the conflicts are also visible. Paulson has surrounded himself with former Goldman executives as he tries to navigate the domino-like collapse of several parts of the global financial market. And others have gone off to lead companies that could be among those that receive a bailout.

In late July, Paulson tapped Ken Wilson, one of Goldman’s most senior executives, to join him as an adviser on what to about problems in the U.S. and global banking sector. Paulson’s former assistant secretary, Robert Steel, left in July to become head of Wachovia, the Charlotte-based bank that has hundreds of millions of troubled mortgage loans on its books.

Goldman Sachs cashed in under Paulson, with earnings in 2005 of $5.6 billion; Paulson made more than $38 million that year. A 2005 annual report shows that “Goldman was still a significant player” in issuing mortgage bonds. The conflict of interest is increasingly clear today, as Bloomberg reports that “Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries” of Paulson’s bailout plan:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid, according to Bank of America Corp.

“Its benefits, in its current form, will be largely limited to investment banks and other banks that have aggressively written down the value of their holdings and have already recognized the attendant capital impairment,” Jeffrey Rosenberg, Bank of America’s head of credit strategy research, wrote in a report today, without identifying particular investment banks.”

The conflict of interest provides all the more reason for the bailout legislation in Congress to have more stringent oversight that the administration opposes.

The Wonk Room notes six months ago, Paulson claimed, “our banks and investment banks, are strong.”

Dora said...

Only if they're Democrats, an unsurprisingly high 1/3 of whom admitted to harboring racist attitudes against blacks by a recent--and respected--poll survey.

I'm sure the MSN would do this kind of poll of Republicans if they had a black nominee for president. I assure you, if that ever happens, I will eat my hat.

And, again, good luck convincing the NY, OH, and PA rednecks to turn in their guns, reycle regularly, and stop going to church.

Stop going to church? No one is going to force them to stop going to church. Turn in their guns and recycle regularly? Yeah, probably. But hey, fi they don't like America, they can always go to redstatia.

"john, you've been college, right?"

Haven't you been paying attention?

"what's the value of college?"

Uhhh...24/7 beer on tap in the fraternity house, and eager co-eds?

"what does one learn in college, generally?"

Uhhh...that eager co-eds are easier when 24/7 beer on tap is made available?

(it's empirically true, as proven over and over again by the scientific method)


Nice dodge. Try again to answer the question for real this time.

Conservatives love the elite among us, whether in business, art, sports, or even dynasty, loving them for their uplifting and inspiring excellence.

It's true, you do. You just disdain and disparage any elite who doesn't agree with you.

The Left does not lke true excellence--the conservative elite-- because it makes their "elites" the sorry mediocrities and outright frauds that they are by comparison.

lol that is just so ridiculous. all Democratic accomplished people are frauds? lol

Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden have been suckling off the tax-milked teat of government (a.k.a. "public service") before they ever had a real job-- and never would have one.
...unless, of course, you count their brief forays in the legal field fresh out of college and prior to their celebrated debut as career "public servants" real jobs.


Well, sonny, firstly you're wrong on the facts at least with respect to Edwards. He made his vast fortune as an ambulance chasing lawyer, not in public service.

Clinton, Obama and Biden have spent most of their lives working in the public service. MY question is, WHY IS THAT BAD?!?!

It's like Dems can't win -- if they work for public service, "they never had jobs," and if they don't, then they're evil. Ugh.

All 4 of these men made their names themselves, you can't take that away from them. Clinton was born into squalor, Obama grew up with a single mom on food stamps, Biden was from a working class family, and Edwards is the son of a mill worker, as he likes to point out.

Why anyone would hold this against them and disparage them for it, and for the success they have made out of their lives, is completely beyond me, and I think is quite shameful.

Meanwhile, MBA Bush worked in the rough-and-tumble crapshoot of the Texas oil exploration industry, owned and managed a major league baseball team, and even managed to learn how to fly Air Force jets before becoming a popular governor of the Great State of Texas.

Are you kidding? Seriously, are you this stupid?! The only reason he had the chance to do all those things was because he was from a rich dynasty with a rich and well-connected daddy that managed to keep him out of Vietnam, and to finance his repeated failures to succeed in the business world. Bush would be driving a truck if he hadn't been legacied into Yale and Harvard, my friend. Don't you ever forget it.

Mac's a war hero.

Don't forget that Maccy wouldn't have had the chance to be shot down in Vietnam and become a war hero if he wasn't legacied into the Naval Academy int he first place.

Both he and Bush were born with silver spoons, whereas Biden, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Hillary Clinton too -- were all born into complete working or middle class mediocrity.

Fuhget about it. She's the most authentic "normal" person of them all, but while shamelessly try to doll up your Democratic senators as ordinary Joes, you viciously attack and disqualify her precisely because she's a real Jane.

She is pretty mediocre. 6 colleges in 5 years, etc. She's a pitbull though, but I don't think that qualifies her to be president.

You informed:'

"(btw, Edwards and Biden are not Ivy-educated)."

You're nitpicking.


It's a fact. What happened to rigor and precision?

Right. And Al Gore chewed tobbacy in Tenesseee. And John Kerry is a deer-hunter.

I didn't say anything about them. Al Gore is from a dynasty too, undeniable, but not one as massive and wealthy as Bush. i don't know very much about Kerry's biography, I'd have to look it up. From what I understand, he's not from wealthy stock either.

And Bill Clinton used to yahoo around in a pick-up truck with astro-turf on it's bed.

Well, Clinton really is a redneck.


It's true, trailer park and all. So to call him "elitist" and Dubya "the common man" is completely ridiculous.

And [Bush and McCain] both properly rebelled against what that status expected of them in their youth, while eschewing the protocols and rote behaviors demanded of them both in Annapolis, Yale, and Harvard, as is proper for true elites in their youth, and very much unlike the unctuous, flattering, brown-nosing, and outright phoniness programmed into young elitist who learned how to play--not buck--the System.

Oh please. They rebelled, but they went - one to Yale and harvard, and the other to the Naval Academy. And then they went, one into the military and the other into business and his daddy's footsteps. Neither ever cast off the advantages given to them by their dynasty status, and used them to their fullest advantage.

Maverick McCain and Calamity Jane Palin are buckaroos, true outsiders and agents of change

There's no way you believe the shit you type.

--as Dubya also most certainly was, having changed the map (and the skylines of cities from coast-to-coast, as well as in Baghdad and Kabul).

Oh yeah, great.

Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden grease the staus quo.

Oh yeah, Obama especially. LOL you are truly a marvel of stupidity.

"McCain is a 3rd-generation Navy legacy who was legacied into the Naval Academy, and then married a super-rich heiress."

Every young, red-blooded American male's dream (if not the American one).


The dream of impotent losers on the right who can't make their own way to success.

suze said...

They're all just a bunch of Ivy League-trained lawyers-- which, again, certainly gives 'expertise' with the law and rhetorical methods, but often insulates them from the life of the Everyman they then claim to empathize with

Why, this reminds me quite a bit of Michelle Obama's dissertation that you guys hated so much

Anonymous said...

A thing cannot be X and not X at the same time, and other basic logical rules apply.

As I said previously (in a quote from Nietzsche) Logic is merely a "useful fiction". Do you assent to this truth, or do you deny it?

Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must first be treated fictitously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. From which it follows that a drive rules here that is capable of employing both means, firstly falsification, then the implementation of its own point of view: logic does not spring from will to truth.

"Two X" is impossible. "A thing cannot be X and not X at the same time." There is only X and Y and Z and... no two things are "same" they only be "like". There are no "equal" things, merely "similar" things.

Anonymous said...

Numbers are fictions based on similarities. 1+1 is a fundamentally flawed and illogical proposition.

Anonymous said...

But if you insist on using something as flawed and illogical as logic, please read the Plato's Parmenides. It's eminently "logical" and proves the proposition that if one is not, then nothing is.

suze said...

ha! palin watched the tina fey comedy routine on snl "with the sound turned all the way down," but found it "hilarious."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc9mPh1idj0


definitely, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.........

Dora said...

Numbers are fictions based on similarities. 1+1 is a fundamentally flawed and illogical proposition.

ok, well, good luck with that.

John said...

mid-nite grunted:

"Then we must get creative and militant...there are some good ideas out there."

Go for it. Militant leftists are real winners at the polls (and Life, too).

John said...

You quoted:

"Only if they're Democrats, an unsurprisingly high 1/3 of whom admitted to harboring racist attitudes against blacks by a recent--and respected--poll survey."

You changed the subject:

"I'm sure the MSN would do this kind of poll of Republicans if they had a black nominee for president. I assure you, if that ever happens, I will eat my hat."

But what about the ONE-THIRD (33%) of Democrats who are categorically racist?

You quoted"

"And, again, good luck convincing the NY, OH, and PA rednecks to turn in their guns, reycle regularly, and stop going to church."

You gasped:

"Stop going to church? No one is going to force them to stop going to church."

What if it's fundamentalist?

The government of Bluestatia wouldn't want The State's Children raised believing that abortion, homosexuality, and faith in worldy government are sins, and that Jesus Christ is the real Lord & Savior of humanity, would they?

"Turn in their guns and recycle regularly? Yeah, probably."

Whoa. You just wiped out the Second Amendment.

And admitted that you'd force them to recycle-- with the leveling of punitive fees, preumably, vs. the carrot of cash for cans we have in Redstatia.

And that right there illustrates the difference between conservative methods of altering behavior vs, lefty ones: A system of reward vs. coercion, respectively (the latter as determined by elitists who know better than the coerced citizenry).

"But hey, fi (sic) they don't like America, they can always go to redstatia."

That's what Hitler essentially said about the Jews in Germany.

And the North Vienamese about the Cambodians.

And Milosevic about the Muslim Kosovars.

You're a Nazi, Dora.

"john, you've been college, right?"

"Haven't you been paying attention?

"Nice dodge. Try again to answer the question for real this time."

How is that relevant to what I'm saying now, either as a college graduate, or not?

Will you reconsider the credibility of what I've written if I told you that I had a PhD?

But what I've already written wouldn't existentially change by one letter, only your judgment of it, based on your knowledge of my education level.

But it shouldn't. Your judgment of it should be based upon its merits alone, whatever educational history is behind its formulation.

You're like a astonishingly shallow person I knew who once eyed a shirt I was wearing with cautious admiration. He guardedly said, "That's a nice shirt," almost with a question mark at the end (like "That didn't make sense?"), but then checked the label on the back, and, with eyes wide open, gasped "That's a VERY nice shirt!"

And that is why you are an elitist.

You're fully capable of deeming a vacuous blowhard brilliant, simply brilliant, if he/she had a PhD in anything, while--without the benefit of hindsight-- dismissing natural and self-taught geniuses who were high school dropouts like Einstein, Shakespeare, Lincoln, B. Franklin, Walt Disney, George Washington, Jimmy Page, Elton John, Dickens, De Niro, Tarantino, Schwarznegger, J.D. Rockefeller, Sinatra, Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Ray Croc, Henry Ford, Michael J. Fox, Wolfgang Puck, Chris Rock, and Harry Houdini in their respective fields of physics, poetry, politics and leadership, invention, art, music, writing, acting, directing, industry and finance, singing, comedy, cookery, magic AND law (e.g. Lincoln) as unlearned bumpkins compared to their degreed counterparts.

"what's the value of college?"

College has a lot of personal value (even beyond the immersement in academia), and provides greater social benefits and career opportunities for the 20-something with a diploma or two over the high school graduate (and/or dropout), and increases the odds of securing white collar employment, making a good living, and finding a fit mate to procreate.

And that's about it.

Very few reach the top of their fields and make a real difference (most people being mediocre with or without a degree), and when they do, sometimes they find themselves asking for a job from the high school drop-out now running a company, because he had an 8-10 year head-start in the real world and has superior experience.

And sometimes it is the high school drop-out who is at the top of his field (see list of luminaries above) who has to ask for a job from a mediocrity with a graduate degree.

Ya never know with life.

The problem with elitists is, they think they do, and what it means to be a success, and what it means to be a failure.

And with that hubris comes Nemesis: Those Darwinian leftists --with advanced degrees who are condescending towards the "unschooled" Creationist right-winger-- wake up one day, childless, dried up and petered out, and (too late), realize that it is the good wife and mother who skipped college to raise a family who has--by Darwin's own, ruthless measuring stick-- truly succeeded, truly created something concrete and conducive--and imperative-- to Life: The next generation of humans.

And the "enlightened" and "better educated" Darwinian leftist fails in life, Dora, by Darwin's own standards, and by their own selfish Darwinism.

And I'm sure they don't teach you that in law school.

Anyway, the primary value of college used to be--a long, long, time ago-- its dissemination of information and knowledge for their own sakes, applicable in every field, with room for specialization so as to best equip the intellect and build the character to have an enjoyable, productive, prosperous, and contributory life as a self-actualized citizen in a co-operative society.

Today, they are more and more "institutions of higher learning" that resemble nothing but fancy trade schools (i.e. teaching people how to specialize in something to make a buck).

But there are still plenty of beacons of higher learning in America that are the best in the world.

Unfortunately, many of them have also become ideologically poisoned by liberal elitists who have insidiously taken over the curriculum, and the kids are drinking $100,000 Kool Aid (as evident in here).

"what does one learn in college, generally?"

Information and experience (generally).

But not necessarily how to process it properly.

I admired:

"Conservatives love the elite among us, whether in business, art, sports, or even dynasty, loving them for their uplifting and inspiring excellence."

You bummered:

"It's true, you do. You just disdain and disparage any elite who doesn't agree with you."

Denial. That's pure projection, a charge I levied on you FIRST:

"You laud the 'expertise' of laureled and degreed academics who subscibe to your world-view and point to their certificates for proof of peer-reviewed expertise, yet you do not abide by the same qualifiers when it comes to the PhD of a VDH when he discusses the nature of war and Middle Eastern history, the law degree of an Anne Coulter when she discusses the anti-Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, or the Harvard MBA of a supply-sider who recommends lightnening the tax burdens of producers (a.k.a. "tax cuts for the rich"), simply because they don't pass the litmus tests of your ultimate arbiter of 'expertise' on anything:

Your ideology."

Next time, before mindlessly upchucking projection, you should instead explain why it does not apply to you, but does apply to me, making me the guilty one of projection (though that would not be an easy task,
since I explain your guilt quite thoroughly and indisputably).

You quoted:

"The Left does not like true excellence--the conservative elite-- because it makes their 'elites' the sorry mediocrities and outright frauds that they are by comparison."

You heckled:

"lol that is just so ridiculous. all Democratic accomplished people are frauds? lol"

I didn't say "all." You're putting words in my mouth to justify your response--which is a non sequitur without the arbitrarily added word "all."

That's weasely.

You quoted:

"Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden have been suckling off the tax-milked teat of government (a.k.a. 'public service') before they ever had a real job-- and never would have one.
...unless, of course, you count their brief forays in the legal field fresh out of college and prior to their celebrated debut as career 'public servants' real jobs."

You "corrected":

"Well, sonny, firstly you're wrong on the facts at least with respect to Edwards. He made his vast fortune as an ambulance chasing lawyer, not in public service."

Denial. I said:

"...unless, of course, you count their brief forays in the legal field fresh out of college and prior to their celebrated debut as career 'public servants' real jobs."

Try again.

"Clinton, Obama and Biden have spent most of their lives working in the public service. MY question is, WHY IS THAT BAD?!?!"

Who said it was "bad," per se? We were talking about elitist out-of-touchism with "normal" Joe Schmoes, the quintessential paradigm of which is the career Washington bureaucrat--a good reason why we rarely see congressmen elected president.

You whined:

"It's like Dems can't win -- if they work for public service, 'they never had jobs,' and if they don't, then they're evil. Ugh."

Except for the "can't win" part, I don't know what that means.

"All 4 of these men made their names themselves, you can't take that away from them."

The end does not justify the means, Dora. The problem with these "rags-to-riches" Democrats is that their rise to fame & fortune is riddled with controversy, scandal, dubious accomplishments, shady deals and affiliations, and a ruthles eye for the prize of political power every step of the way (i.e. the nobility of their "good works" are tarnished by ulterior motive).

I repeat:

"Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden have been suckling off the tax-milked teat of government (a.k.a. 'public service') before they ever had a real job-- and never would have one.
...unless, of course, you count their brief forays in the legal field fresh out of college and prior to their celebrated debut as career 'public servants' real jobs."

You praised:

"Clinton was born into squalor, Obama grew up with a single mom on food stamps, Biden was from a working class family, and Edwards is the son of a mill worker, as he likes to point out.

Why anyone would hold this against them and disparage them for it, and for the success they have made out of their lives, is completely beyond me, and I think is quite shameful."

*sigh*

I repeat:

"God Bless America, baby."

And:

"Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden have been suckling off the tax-milked teat of government (a.k.a. 'public service') before they ever had a real job-- and never would have one.
...unless, of course, you count their brief forays in the legal field fresh out of college and prior to their celebrated debut as career 'public servants' real jobs."

You quoted:

"Meanwhile, MBA Bush worked in the rough-and-tumble crapshoot of the Texas oil exploration industry, owned and managed a major league baseball team, and even managed to learn how to fly Air Force jets before becoming a popular governor of the Great State of Texas."

You denounced:

"Are you kidding? Seriously, are you this stupid?!"

Now you know how Bush felt dealing with Saddam prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

And you called it "a failure in diplomacy."

You should keep your composure and mind your manners if you don't want to be called a hypocrite.

You "explained":

"The only reason (Bush) had the chance to do all those things was because he was from a rich dynasty with a rich and well-connected daddy that managed to keep him out of Vietnam, and to finance his repeated failures to succeed in the business world."

He wore the uniform and learned how to fly a jet (which ain't easy, as both John McCain and JFK Jr. could--or would--attest).

And "Father & Son" type enterprises are as American as mom & apple pie, whether in small business or politics.

Nothing wrong at all with a father doing all in his power to help his son succeed in life.

Of course, doesn't bother you one damn bit to see the thriving political power of the Kennedy clan, as ruthlessly orchestrated by patriarch Joe Sr--which can be extended to Bill Clinton, who rode to the top milking that very mojo as if he was JFK Jr.'s and Caroline's long-lost elder brother.

And John Kerry who has JFK syndrome.

And John Edwards,

And Obama.

They're all tried or are trying to ape someone who's been dead for almost a half century.

That's the gimmick. It's true and it's outrageous.

"All 4 of these men made their names themselves"? They're trying to be someone else who's been long dead, and whose surviving little brother--Uncle Teddy--is the kingmaker for a decrepit Camelot, and whose ring they must all kiss.

The Democratic primaries for the past 40+ years have been nothing but JFK-lookalike beauty pageants.

I know it sounds incredible, but it's true.

"you can't take that away from them."

I just did. They're empty shells. Each and every one.

"Bush would be driving a truck if he hadn't been legacied into Yale and Harvard, my friend. Don't you ever forget it."

I wonder how far Clinton would've gone if he never went on that field trip to DC as a 16 year old and had himself photographed shaking the hand of JFK.

Bush had the brains to score in the same range (if not higher) on his SATS as Clinton.

And I don't think Carl Rove took his GMATS and Harvard MBA exams for him.

Finally (and most damning to your argument of all):

"Bush would be driving a truck if he hadn't..."

Bingo.

You said:

"Neither she nor Dubya are regular guys off the street."

And I said:

"(Bush, etc.) ain't elitist liberals, that's for damn sure, and so can appeal to the "regular guy off the street" (or perhaps the farmland) far more effectively (Hillary's shot-slamming and Barack's flag-pin wearing notwithstanding)."

Or truckdrivers, for that matter.

(Thank you very much.)

You quoted:

"Mac's a war hero."

You "reminded":

"Don't forget that Maccy wouldn't have had the chance to be shot down in Vietnam and become a war hero if he wasn't legacied into the Naval Academy int he first place.

Both he and Bush were born with silver spoons, whereas Biden, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Hillary Clinton too -- were all born into complete working or middle class mediocrity."

Again, pay attention:

"Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden have been suckling off the tax-milked teat of government (a.k.a. 'public service') before they ever had a real job-- and never would have one.
...unless, of course, you count their brief forays in the legal field fresh out of college and prior to their celebrated debut as career 'public servants' real jobs."

And:

"Of course, doesn't bother you one damn bit to see the thriving political power of the Kennedy clan, as ruthlessly orchestrated by patriarch Joe Sr--which can be extended to Bill Clinton, who rode to the top milking that very mojo as if he was JFK Jr.'s and Caroline's long-lost elder brother."

And:

"Meanwhile, your shameles, star-stricken crowd treats their elites like royalty-- especially the Kennedy clan of Camelot, where you bottoms-up and swallow favoritism, nepotism, celebrityism, and and genetic succession while toasting that monarchy but remaining tasteless to the credible allegations, documented accusations, and guilty convictions involving reckless whoring, drug abuse, alcoholism, manslaughter, rape, and idiocy as ingredients of that brew, and even toss the shot glass of democracy over your shoulder and out the window after toasting that monarchy), inspiring nothing but giddily-intoxicated servitude to your kings, queens, and the royal brood."

You quoted:

"Fuhget about it. (Palin's) the most authentic 'normal' person of them all, but while shamelessly try to doll up your Democratic senators as ordinary Joes, you viciously attack and disqualify her precisely because she's a real Jane."

You downplayed:

"She is pretty mediocre."

She's dynamite.

"6 colleges in 5 years, etc."

That's more than you, Dora.

"She's a pitbull though, but I don't think that qualifies her to be president."

Not by itself, of course not. But you won't see her crying like Hillary did when "the boys ganged up on her"--which certainly disqualifies her from being president.

Sarah Palin puts faux-feminist liberals to shame.

She's the best thing to happen to REAL women since Margaret Thatcher (give her time, she's still young).

You quoted:

"You're nitpicking." (vis-a-vis "btw, Edwards and Biden are not Ivy-educated.")

You reminded:

"It's a fact. What happened to rigor and precision?"

Nothing. Carry on.

You quoted:

"Right. And Al Gore chewed tobbacy in Tenesseee. And John Kerry is a deer-hunter."

You demurred:

"I didn't say anything about them. Al Gore is from a dynasty too, undeniable, but not one as massive and wealthy as Bush."

So is your gripe about principle, or degree?

"i don't know very much about Kerry's biography, I'd have to look it up. From what I understand, he's not from wealthy stock either."

Please. There's pics of him as a teenager with JFK, too (on the latter's yacht).

You quoted:

"And Bill Clinton used to yahoo around in a pick-up truck with astro-turf on it's bed.

Well, Clinton really is a redneck."

You concurred:

"It's true, trailer park and all. So to call him 'elitist' and Dubya 'the common man' is completely ridiculous."

You bit my bait (thank you very much) and inverted 180 degrees both the essential qualities of the men AND your own arguments, which, again, is causing me to run around and around in circles trying to follow your BLASTED line of reasoning.

Now see here:

First you essentially argued that Bush & Palin are really "unaccomplished" bumpkins, the former having the future of a truckdriver (God Bless truckdrivers) if it wasn't for poppy, that they were, in fact, not much more qualified for high office than the average Joe & Jane off the street, that they were, intellectually, essentially, "commoners" (which, in your elitist worldview, is pretty worthless).

By contrast, you passionately argued that Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden are very qualified by virtue of their uncommon educational and professional (i.e. lawyerly) credentials that sets them apart and above *hoi polloi* (who you pretend to champion but have betrayed an actual contempt for, snobbishly tossing out this or that condescending remark in their direction like a rock in your game of hop-scotch).

Then, you PROUDLY agree about Clinton:

"It's true, trailer park and all."

In other words, yes, a "commoner," a Joe off the street (if not the railroad tracks), while Bush (and McCain) came from the uncommon privilege of belonging to an elite dynasty and so are spoiled and worthless.

So what's the deal?

Clinton, Edwards, Biden , and Obama came from "common" beginnings but grew up to be succesful--and acceptable-- elitists, while Bush & McCain came from elite beginnings and grew up
to become...unacceptable commoners/mediocrities?

And Sarah Palin belongs to the former group but is still unacceptable because...?

Because she's conservative, plain and simple.

You have ZERO consistency because you have the double and triple standards of a partisan ideologue.

You confuse and contradict yourself from one posted comment to another simply because you mix up the loaded deck in youthful clumsiness--if not by the shellgaming of a shyster-- and play the wrong card in a game where the values of face cards are constantly changing and--depending on who you're playing-- are worth more or less than the number cards:

"My elitist king of diamonds is higher than your lowly three of clubs!"

Then:

"My down-to-earth four of spades is higher than your queen of hearts!"

Then:

"My jack of spades is higher than your king of clubs!"

Why?

Because you're playing the liberal cards, which always beat the conservative cards, even if the latter are better, in the liberal game of TIGWAR (i.e. "The Incredible Game Without Any Rules").

You switch conservative "elite" with liberal "elitism" and Clintonian yokelism with Palinesque ruggedness and trump everything with the Clinton joker before bending both ends of the deck towards each other with one hand and releasing the cards across the room in rapid succession, leaving me to clean up the mess.

You quoted:

"And [Bush and McCain] both properly rebelled against what that status expected of them in their youth, while eschewing the protocols and rote behaviors demanded of them both in Annapolis, Yale, and Harvard, as is proper for true elites in their youth, and very much unlike the unctuous, flattering, brown-nosing, and outright phoniness programmed into young elitist who learned how to play--not buck--the System."

You scoffed:

"Oh please. They rebelled, but they went - one to Yale and harvard, and the other to the Naval Academy."

So? Good for them that they didn't flunk out and/or go to jail but woke up and seized the day that was offered, and earned.

Great American stories.

"And then they went, one into the military and the other into business and his daddy's footsteps."

Nice footsteps to follow. They lead them both all the way into the White House.

...That the people of the United States--not their fathers-- hold the key to.

Don't forget that.

Actually, that's what this is all about, as you battle for the hearts and minds of average American that you hold in contempt, the conflict manifesting itself in your campaigning for your candidates as you snobbishly boast of their elitism in one breath, then praise their aw-shucks Everyman qualities in the next.

"Neither ever cast off the advantages given to them by their dynasty status."

Yes they did. They were proverbial Prince Hals, and lived on the edge, boozing, chasing tail, and getting bad grades.

"...and used them to their fullest advantage."

Eventually, here and there, naturally. But Bush's dad didn't take the exams and get the scores required to get his son into Yale and then the Harvard MBA program, and complete it. He wasn't in the pilot seat flying the Air Force jet.

And he didn't tell him to go into Iraq.

*Au contraire,* he advised against it, which flies in the face of your "Daddy's Boy-Not-His-Own-Man" argument.

His father didn't force the Texans to make him their governor.

Twice.

He didn't force the American people to make him their president.

Twice.

Likewise McCain--who could have been released early from the Hanoi Hilton precisely BECAUSE of who his father was, but wouldn't leave his commoner buddies behind.

--while ambitious elitist Clinton used his connections to keep himself out.

You quoted:

"Maverick McCain and Calamity Jane Palin are buckaroos, true outsiders and agents of change."

You began to beyotch:

"There's no way you believe the shit you type."

You quoted:

"--as Dubya also most certainly was, having changed the map (and the skylines of cities from coast-to-coast, as well as in Baghdad and Kabul)."

You agreed:

"Oh yeah, great."

You quoted:

"Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden grease the staus quo."

You beyotched out:

"Oh yeah, Obama especially. LOL you are truly a marvel of stupidity."

The only thing different about Obama is his name and race.

He comes out of old school--and greasy--Chicago politics.

You had said:

"McCain is a 3rd-generation Navy legacy who was legacied into the Naval Academy, and then married a super-rich heiress."

I replied:

"Every young, red-blooded American male's dream (if not the American one)."

You beyotched away:

"The dream of impotent losers on the right who can't make their own way to success."

Yeah. Like John Kerry.

Anonymous said...

ok, well, good luck with that.

1 cannot equal 1, else it would be two.

Every logical proposition is a fallacy, by definition.

And you haven't proven any of your "scientific" propositions, nor the origins of them. You say that time exists and it passes, but even time is relative and it's passage dependent upon velocity. As Tennessee William's said, "Time is the longest distance between two places." The faster you go, the shorter it (and you) is, no matter how you measure it. Put at watch at source and origin, and they will likely match, but put one on the light speed vessel that travels between them and your clock will produce a different result.

Anonymous said...

There is spacetime, but time is either an absolute (if you believe in gids) or relative (if you do not). Which time do YOU believe in, dora? Einsteinian or Quantum?

Anonymous said...

erratum- gods for gids.

Anonymous said...

btw - string theorists are atheists to your time proposition. They don't believe in spacetime. Their universe is too "wiggly".

Dora said...

But what about the ONE-THIRD (33%) of Democrats who are categorically racist?

Yes, they are racists, i imagine. What about them?

The government of Bluestatia wouldn't want The State's Children raised believing that abortion, homosexuality, and faith in worldy government are sins, and that Jesus Christ is the real Lord & Savior of humanity, would they?

Go to church, it's okay. We'd have good schools to counter all that bullshit, unlike now.

"Turn in their guns and recycle regularly? Yeah, probably."

Whoa. You just wiped out the Second Amendment.


Nope, you get to keep your guns if you're in a "well-regulated militia".

And admitted that you'd force them to recycle-- with the leveling of punitive fees, preumably, vs. the carrot of cash for cans we have in Redstatia.

And that right there illustrates the difference between conservative methods of altering behavior vs, lefty ones: A system of reward vs. coercion, respectively (the latter as determined by elitists who know better than the coerced citizenry).


We have "forced" recycling here in NYC, the whole city. And it works. Our rates of recycling are much higher than where it is voluntary, and I have NEVER heard ANYONE complain about it, because everyone agrees it's a good thing, like not allowing throwing cell phones and batteries into the regular trash.

You're a Nazi, Dora.

REally? Am I a Nazi? i propose completely voluntary open borders, but people do have to obey the law, after all. What's so nazi about that?


"what's the value of college?"

College has a lot of personal value (even beyond the immersement in academia), and provides greater social benefits and career opportunities for the 20-something with a diploma or two over the high school graduate (and/or dropout), and increases the odds of securing white collar employment, making a good living, and finding a fit mate to procreate.

And that's about it.

Very few reach the top of their fields and make a real difference (most people being mediocre with or without a degree), and when they do, sometimes they find themselves asking for a job from the high school drop-out now running a company, because he had an 8-10 year head-start in the real world and has superior experience.

And sometimes it is the high school drop-out who is at the top of his field (see list of luminaries above) who has to ask for a job from a mediocrity with a graduate degree.


Perhaps you missed this part of college when you went, but the main point is to teach independent work ethic and critical thinking. That's why employers seek out college-educated employees -- because they will have those two skills.

And with that hubris comes Nemesis: Those Darwinian leftists --with advanced degrees who are condescending towards the "unschooled" Creationist right-winger-- wake up one day, childless, dried up and petered out, and (too late), realize that it is the good wife and mother who skipped college to raise a family who has--by Darwin's own, ruthless measuring stick-- truly succeeded, truly created something concrete and conducive--and imperative-- to Life: The next generation of humans.

And the "enlightened" and "better educated" Darwinian leftist fails in life, Dora, by Darwin's own standards, and by their own selfish Darwinism.

And I'm sure they don't teach you that in law school.


You're right, John, Michelangelo and Isaac Newton did not truly succeed, since they didn't have chidlren. They would have been more successful had they not contributed to human accomplishment in the way they did, and instead just lived in obscurity raising children.

Anyway, the primary value of college used to be--a long, long, time ago-- its dissemination of information and knowledge for their own sakes, applicable in every field, with room for specialization so as to best equip the intellect and build the character to have an enjoyable, productive, prosperous, and contributory life as a self-actualized citizen in a co-operative society.

Today, they are more and more "institutions of higher learning" that resemble nothing but fancy trade schools (i.e. teaching people how to specialize in something to make a buck).


Not centrally the dissemination of knowledge -- that's just stamp-collecting, in the words of a famous scientist. College is supposed to teach you how to think critically and independently for yourself.

I dunno about the college where you went, but the one I went to was not a trade school.

Unfortunately, many of them have also become ideologically poisoned by liberal elitists who have insidiously taken over the curriculum, and the kids are drinking $100,000 Kool Aid (as evident in here).

Haha, this is the classic wingnut canard. You think that colleges are so leftwing because of a vast leftwing conspiracy. I think that it's because rightwingers jsut don't do very well with the whole "critical thinking" and "independent work ethic" of academia that is necessary to succeed in academia and rise to professorships and other positions of influence.

"what does one learn in college, generally?"

Information and experience (generally).


See, you learned the wrong thing. That's why you're now making such a fool of yourself on a backwoods blog.

"Well, sonny, firstly you're wrong on the facts at least with respect to Edwards. He made his vast fortune as an ambulance chasing lawyer, not in public service."

Denial. I said:

"...unless, of course, you count their brief forays in the legal field fresh out of college and prior to their celebrated debut as career 'public servants' real jobs."


"Brief forays" for Edwards? 20 years working as a trial lawyer, from 1978 to 1998, is not a "brief foray." Get your facts right, again.

The end does not justify the means, Dora. The problem with these "rags-to-riches" Democrats is that their rise to fame & fortune is riddled with controversy, scandal, dubious accomplishments, shady deals and affiliations, and a ruthles eye for the prize of political power every step of the way (i.e. the nobility of their "good works" are tarnished by ulterior motive).

Ah, now you trot out another argument why our cavalcade of regular Joes is not REALLY regular at all. Boring. Everyone's rise to fame is riddled with that - Bush's, McCain's, Palin's as much if not more than Clinton's, Edwards', Gore's, Kerry's, etc.

Of course, doesn't bother you one damn bit to see the thriving political power of the Kennedy clan, as ruthlessly orchestrated by patriarch Joe Sr--which can be extended to Bill Clinton, who rode to the top milking that very mojo as if he was JFK Jr.'s and Caroline's long-lost elder brother.

They're all tried or are trying to ape someone who's been dead for almost a half century.

That's the gimmick. It's true and it's outrageous.


That's so absurd. Until you can prove that somehow the Kennedy clan arranged for Joe Biden to go to law school or for John Edwards to get his federal clerkship, or that they paid for Barack Obama's private high school and college, or that they financed John Edwards' first law firm, you've got nothing.

"6 colleges in 5 years, etc."

That's more than you, Dora.


Lol yeah, it is. I got my BA after 3 years, master's one more year after that.

First you essentially argued that Bush & Palin are really "unaccomplished" bumpkins, the former having the future of a truckdriver (God Bless truckdrivers) if it wasn't for poppy, that they were, in fact, not much more qualified for high office than the average Joe & Jane off the street, that they were, intellectually, essentially, "commoners" (which, in your elitist worldview, is pretty worthless).

By contrast, you passionately argued that Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Biden are very qualified by virtue of their uncommon educational and professional (i.e. lawyerly) credentials that sets them apart and above *hoi polloi* (who you pretend to champion but have betrayed an actual contempt for, snobbishly tossing out this or that condescending remark in their direction like a rock in your game of hop-scotch).

Then, you PROUDLY agree about Clinton:

"It's true, trailer park and all."

In other words, yes, a "commoner," a Joe off the street (if not the railroad tracks), while Bush (and McCain) came from the uncommon privilege of belonging to an elite dynasty and so are spoiled and worthless.

So what's the deal?

Clinton, Edwards, Biden , and Obama came from "common" beginnings but grew up to be succesful--and acceptable-- elitists, while Bush & McCain came from elite beginnings and grew up
to become...unacceptable commoners/mediocrities?

And Sarah Palin belongs to the former group but is still unacceptable because...?


Sarah Palin is more like Bill Clinton & co. that McCain and Bush.

Here's the deal: McCain and Bush are two people who were made elite and uncommon by the privilege given to them by virtue of their birth into dynasties. Had they been born where Joe Biden or Bill Clinton were born, they would be zeroes.

Bill Clinton & Co. were born into very common circumstances, but have above-average ability and intelligence, and thus rose through the ranks to become successful.

So you see, the Republicans are made uncommon not through any virtue of their own, but through their dynasty connections and marriages. They are not in touch with the "common man" because they were born into dynasties. Starting Day 1, they were on 3rd base.

The Dem cavalcade, for the most part, was made uncommon through their own natural abilities and accomplishments. They were not born on 3rd base. They managed to accomplish all they did starting at home, like most people do.

So, i think it's clear who is more admirable and who is more in touch with the common man.

"Neither ever cast off the advantages given to them by their dynasty status."

Yes they did. They were proverbial Prince Hals, and lived on the edge, boozing, chasing tail, and getting bad grades.


Omg how stupid can you get. Both of them took full advantage of their dynasty status, and only misbehaved in this way because they KNEW that even if they fucked up and graduated last in their classes, they would still have that silver spoon and daddy would take care of it. Us average folk with no connections don't have that fallback.

Eventually, here and there, naturally. But Bush's dad didn't take the exams and get the scores required to get his son into Yale and then the Harvard MBA program, and complete it. He wasn't in the pilot seat flying the Air Force jet.

Um, yeah, Bush's SATs were not good enough for Yale on their own, and no one knows what his GMAT is, so "we don't know" how he got in.

John said...

M-hm. I'll be back.

Anonymous said...

Wow...what's this...the windbag moron club?

Odd deal...the dumber the poster, the more time they want to spend demostrating it.

Anonymous said...

Well, la deee da; who are you? I find it quite ineresting...at least the lib lady's stuff. Typical bonehead boilerplate from the GOPtwerp, but what do you expectorate?

Anonymous said...

Never have so few said so much about so little and made it soutterly boring as well...

Anonymous said...

the blogger's extended version of "Dumb and Dumber"....

peanuts for peabrains said...

The monkeys are getting restless. Must be feeding time at the zoo. They've started to fling poo again.

Anonymous said...

the blogger's extended version of "Dumb and Dumber"....

No, it appears to be two dumbasses desperate for attention.

eek eek I'm a dnc geek said...

...and a monkey dancing with a cup.

Anonymous said...

LOL!

Now here's a surprise. Even the monkeys hate Dora.

Having fun, John? ;-)

John said...

Oo yeah. I'll be ready for another round after I have a cigarette and pop some vitamins.

If she thinks I'll be the one getting worn out first, she's in for a big surprise.

It's even possible that she's already thrown in the towel and tip-toed away with her shoes in her hand while I was napping.

Anonymous said...

The little simp is having a flashback to the last time he got laid...and the whore tiptoed away with his wallet while he was passed out.

John said...

That's never happened, and so never occurred to me, especially in regards to Dora.

The way it occurred to you.

The premise of my little joke was that Dora met her match and decided to discreetly depart rather than face me in the morning and formally surrender (which is a cute kind of cowardice).

You, meanwhile, are thinking whores and theft, because that's the context a lowlife like you lives in in.

You're dismissed.

John said...

Dora quoted:

"But what about the ONE-THIRD (33%) of Democrats who are categorically racist?"

Dora answered:

"Yes, they are racists, i imagine. What about them?"

What do you mean, "What about them?"

You had sniffed:

"I do admit that I really don't like racist, xenophobic, nationalistic white people. And those are the people that mostly live in the red states."

I replied:

"Only if they're Democrats, an unsurprisingly high 1/3 of whom admitted to harboring racist attitudes against blacks by a recent--and respected--poll survey."

You changed the subject:

"I'm sure the MSN would do this kind of poll of Republicans if they had a black nominee for president. I assure you, if that ever happens, I will eat my hat."

So I brought your attention back to the subject of racism and 1/3 of polled Democrats admitting it.

You blink-blink:

"What about them?"

The OBVIOUS point is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (DUH!)

You quoted:

"The government of Bluestatia wouldn't want The State's Children raised believing that abortion, homosexuality, and faith in worldy government are sins, and that Jesus Christ is the real Lord & Savior of humanity, would they?"

You magnanimously granted:

"Go to church, it's okay. We'd have good schools to counter all that bullshit, unlike now."

Very telling indeed.

And scary.

You're right out of a novel by Orwell or Huxley.

And by your own words you prove true the charge that you otherwise play dumb about and deny:

The public school systems--of The State-- have been taken over by liberal idealogues and are now enclaves of militant secularism that consciously "counter"--i.e. fight--the anti-secular "bullshit" influence of The Church upon The Children (who might as well be named Hansel & Gretel).

The success of the wicked agenda is already paying the devil his due by the epidemic of--*inter alias*-- school shootings and teen pregnancies, the natural, "Lord of the Flies" outcome when moral Order is replaced by ordered Chaos.

And if the schools aren't bad enough now, you'd go even further:

"We'd have good schools to counter all that bullshit, unlike now."

You're like Weatherman William Ayers, who, when asked about his leftwing terrorist group's bombing activities, said: "We didn't do enough."

Presumably there won't be any private schools (Catholic, Evangelical, etc.) in Bluestatia --at least ones that are free to teach ideas contra to the ideological liberalism of the public schools.

Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and the other watchdogs ain't crying wolf: The Left hates America.

Your utopian "America" is a new one called "Redstatia," which was formed by cleaving the United States of America in two, effectively killing it.

By shamelessly admitting that the secular State-run schools in your evil Queendom will be used to "counter" the Church effectively, you just...

...butchered the First Amendment of the old Constitution.

"Turn in their guns and recycle regularly? Yeah, probably."

And just wiped out the 2nd Amendment.

"Nope, you get to keep your guns if you're in a 'well-regulated militia.'"

Cute, Dora.

Tell that to Constitutional lawyers for the NRA and pro-gun Supreme Court Justices, who know what the Constitution says and means a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT better than you (although I'm sure that an elitist like you is completely bereft of the conservative virtue of humility required to recognize--and respect--your elite betters).

Tell that to Obama, the elitist lawyer--and your political Messiah--who opposed the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia (once known as the "Murder Capital Of The World").

But maybe you know where he REALLY stands, and let him get away with it because that's how leftists operate (i.e. by deviousness).

"We have 'forced' recycling here in NYC, the whole city. And it works. Our rates of recycling are much higher than where it is voluntary..."

Gee, do those "higher rates" have anything to with FORCING 8.275 million people to recycle?

"It works!"

Of course it "worked."

It's punishable by law if disobeyed.

Look, I'm not going to argue against the virtues of recycling, but force is force.

You can have any First Lady take up the cause and sweetly ask Americans to be mindful of recycling, and they'll hop to it gallantly.

The Left can't rely on the free individual's moral conscience to do the right thing (how can they while they're simultaneously trying to delete morality from the public conscience, and especially since they know damn well that they themselves don't practice what they preach?), so they rely on laws to control behavior...

...especially the behavior of the "unruly" conservative who knows that the liberals are full of SHIT and liberalism an evil ideology (and that includes radical environmentalism).

They're even trying to control Free Speech by resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine because they get their asses kicked in free forums, which also butchers the First Amendment, but not in the Kool Aid-soaked mind of Dora, but in real life.

Of course, they themselves--many of whom have legal degrees-- know how to get around or be immunized from the very laws they execute against the populace.

Especially when it comes to raising taxes.

They don't pay the "fair share" they preach because--like Kerry-Heinz--they put all their cash in tax-shelters that the average schmoe is unaware of.

The Left is about the centralized control of people's behavior and resources, because they think they know best how to control them (i.e. they're elitist with an anti-elite ideology, a truly elite one promoting not control, but Freedom, which you evidently know nothing about).

"...and I have NEVER heard ANYONE complain about it, because everyone agrees it's a good thing, like not allowing throwing cell phones and batteries into the regular trash."

Please. As if you have any clue to what people outside your cultish groupthink feel about anything.

You're as insulated from the real world as any dogmatic liberal--like you-- is, and you're proving incapable of thinking out of that box.

I'll be back.

noose said...

Here's what I think we need to do, Dora.

Liberals do not need a huge state. If we took, say, the west coast and part of the most liberal Northeast states with provisions made for a secure landline across the northern tier, for instance, it would be more than enough.

Without the drag of luddite trogs with their insane eonomic and cultural baggage, we'd be able to progress light years in a short time span in every area without a huge population.

A state this size run by progressive people would soon outstrip the dying Trogland to a point where their greater size would be irrelevant.

And, they would be far more willing to go with the plan at first if they got most of the land.

Soon, they'd fall so far back that we would be able to dictate terms in all dealings with them, and their saner inhabitants would be seeking to join Libland...which we would grant as long as it included an increase in area to accomodate the growing population of eager participants in a true 21st century state.

stuck his neck in it and jumped said...

Sorry noose. You'll have to get used to being our slaves for the rest of your lives. Secession isn't an option. Work shall set you free.

j. gould said...

That's a good start. I think Canada would soon be interested in joining us, then we'd have the whole thing connected in the north. Their whackos could move up to Alaska and we could sell them back to Russia at a large profit.
After all, they already want to secede and Putin would be just the kind of dictator they crave.

At any rate, we'd certainly have to make sure we had our share of the nukes aimed at their capitol in Dogpatch to hold the starving monkey off after their faith based agriculture succumbed to the bugs.

John said...

noose and Gould are evil.

Go to hell, assholes.

Anonymous said...

lol...that's funny, JG.

Mostly because it's so true.

John said...

You lefty schemers reek of evil.

You should be horsewhipped for subversion and imprisoned for Treason (if not executed).

But of course, you can always fall back to victim status and "justifiable self-defense" to beat the rap.

If the good American people knew about this undercurrent carrying Obama's boat, he'd be sunk in no time.

The good news is, like everyone else, your days on earth limited, and while you spend them telling tales of idiots, full of sound and fury signifying NOTHING, the grim reaper will be creeping ever closer, and when he GRABS you by the scruff of your bony necks and drags you screaming down to hell, the bells aren't going to toll, they're going to ring buh-bye, assholes.

grim said...

The anti-democratic, homicidal, zionist, religious zealots should have their asses branded and driven off a cliff. Truckloads of Colt 45 beer should be supplied, along with vans, trucks and SUVs filled with gasoline. All manner of guns, semi-automatic rifles, AK-47s and lots of amunition should be thrown over, too. When the shooting stops more amunition should be tossed down. When the shooting does not commence after more amunition has been thrown over the cliff, then we can rest.

karin said...

lol. Do you smell fear? These poor cowards get in a panic over just the thought that liberals might be thinking of shaking them off their backs like leeches.

But, you're right. Migod how fabulous it would be to be rid of these slugs.

Then, natural selection could take its course. Their backward societies would soon self destruct, and we'd have to curb our natural impulse to help the inferior and let nature rid us of them once and for all.

John said...

Yeah, right. I'm "panicked."

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 253 of 253   Newer› Newest»