great Presidential speech

[toddt]

Sept 22, 2009, 7:46am, llama wrote: Quote:Is it just one more sign of the death of Intellectual Conservatism? You used to have great minds such as William F. Buckley extolling the virtues of conservatism and debating the issues of the day through learned and elegant argument. Now, as decried by Republicans such as David Frum amongst others, the party is led (spiritually at least) by idiots like Bachmann and Palin and Beck and Limbaugh who sell anti-intellectualism like a badge of honour. By idiots who pander to racists and xenophobes. By idiots who object to the president's "work hard" speech to schoolchildren.The party has mixed up the desire for "a leadership with the common touch" with the desire for "a leadership who are common people". Leaders should be shining beacons who elevate us with their brilliance, not populist wormtongues who pander to the worst of us. By following the latter, the G in GOP is losing all meaning and relevance.Hey TT it's a shame to see your normally well reasoned arguments dissolve into name calling. You really believe....the 4 people you mention are idiots?.....They seem to be able to function and thrive very well so they are hardly "idiots". Look the term up to see what it means. Someone who doesn't have your own worldview is 99.9% of the time not an idiot. Also by implication you are saying those who oppose Obama are racist and xenophobe.....I roll my eyes again. Also interesting that you mention that Drew's arguements are Fox New's talking points. I suppose all the counter arguements are independantly deduced by the those who espouse them and are not influenced in anyway by what they get from MSNBC, Huff Post, Kos or the White House press sec. BTW the general mood at least from my circle of friends and aqs. is not all anti Obama more anti most politicians be they D or R. I think we would be in the same situation now if McCain had got in...As for "wormtongues" we have our share of them now. Of course if they conform to your world view then you probably don't hear that, only the sound of sweet music .DerekHi Derek,I didn't say those who oppose Obama are racists (nor do I believe they make up a large percentage), I called out the idiots who pander to racists and xenophobes - such as the congressmen who wouldn't vocalise against the 'birthers' for fear of offending their base. Whether idiot is technically correct for them may be debatable, however those (in)actions are idiotic.As for spouting talking points, that is evidenced by the repeated use of irrelevant, double-standard non-sequiturs harped on by Fox News... why else would someone repeatedly bring up this irrational czars nonsense?And while for Palin and Bachmann I stand by my insult (albeit that they idiots relative to their peers rather than text-book definition idiots), for Beck and Limbaugh I happily retract, because an idiot is unintelligent - whereas they are surely guilty of irresponsible, inciteful and calculated malice.And I certainly don't label all who don't agree with my world view to be idiots - in fact I praised conservative intellectuals such as Buckley in that very post. But I do think the party has a serious problem with both the infestation of populist anti-intellectualism, and a lack of leadership prepared to confront its bad elements rather than pander to them.

[rld]

Its simple.Czar = Russian emperorRussia = Communism, therefore Obama is a communist.Hussein = name associated with Muslims,Obamas middle name is Hussein, therefore Obama is a Muslim.Repeat until brainwashing is complete.

[remmet]

I posted this link in another thread, but for a glimpse into the mindset and intelligence level of the right-wing opposition, take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5YRichard

[llama]

Sept 22, 2009, 8:20am, toddt wrote:Sept 22, 2009, 7:46am, llama wrote: Hey TT it's a shame to see your normally well reasoned arguments dissolve into name calling. You really believe....the 4 people you mention are idiots?.....They seem to be able to function and thrive very well so they are hardly "idiots". Look the term up to see what it means. Someone who doesn't have your own worldview is 99.9% of the time not an idiot. Also by implication you are saying those who oppose Obama are racist and xenophobe.....I roll my eyes again. Also interesting that you mention that Drew's arguements are Fox New's talking points. I suppose all the counter arguements are independantly deduced by the those who espouse them and are not influenced in anyway by what they get from MSNBC, Huff Post, Kos or the White House press sec. BTW the general mood at least from my circle of friends and aqs. is not all anti Obama more anti most politicians be they D or R. I think we would be in the same situation now if McCain had got in...As for "wormtongues" we have our share of them now. Of course if they conform to your world view then you probably don't hear that, only the sound of sweet music .DerekHi Derek,I didn't say those who oppose Obama are racists (nor do I believe they make up a large percentage), I called out the idiots who pander to racists and xenophobes - such as the congressmen who wouldn't vocalise against the 'birthers' for fear of offending their base. Whether idiot is technically correct for them may be debatable, however those (in)actions are idiotic.As for spouting talking points, that is evidenced by the repeated use of irrelevant, double-standard non-sequiturs harped on by Fox News... why else would someone repeatedly bring up this irrational czars nonsense?And while for Palin and Bachmann I stand by my insult (albeit that they idiots relative to their peers rather than text-book definition idiots), for Beck and Limbaugh I happily retract, because an idiot is unintelligent - whereas they are surely guilty of irresponsible, inciteful and calculated malice.And I certainly don't label all who don't agree with my world view to be idiots - in fact I praised conservative intellectuals such as Buckley in that very post. But I do think the party has a serious problem with both the infestation of populist anti-intellectualism, and a lack of leadership prepared to confront its bad elements rather than pander to them. Thanks for clarifying TT. Much appreciated. A couple of further points. As far as the congressmen not vocalizing against the birthers. Assuming that the congressmen have a sincere belief that Obama is not a native born American then it is not Xenophobic to argue that he should not be President. It is part of the Constitution that it should be so. It is possible that they sincerely believe that. Same as some D's sincerely believe that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by Bush/Cheney. Also during the Bush era why didn't the D's reign in their most outrageous elements. Didn't happen then......don't ho9ld your breath that it will happen now.Drew's points don't just include the czar issue just go back and take a look. As a side point just because Bush done something doesn't mean Obama should too.D and R are both guilty of pandering to populists. I think this is partly why there is such a general dissatisfaction with politicians here. I heard a great quote that said we want leaders and statesmen not politicians.......IMHO We have no such people today from either side.Derek

[toddt]

Sept 22, 2009, 8:46am, llama wrote:Sept 22, 2009, 8:20am, toddt wrote:Hi Derek,I didn't say those who oppose Obama are racists (nor do I believe they make up a large percentage), I called out the idiots who pander to racists and xenophobes - such as the congressmen who wouldn't vocalise against the 'birthers' for fear of offending their base. Whether idiot is technically correct for them may be debatable, however those (in)actions are idiotic.As for spouting talking points, that is evidenced by the repeated use of irrelevant, double-standard non-sequiturs harped on by Fox News... why else would someone repeatedly bring up this irrational czars nonsense?And while for Palin and Bachmann I stand by my insult (albeit that they idiots relative to their peers rather than text-book definition idiots), for Beck and Limbaugh I happily retract, because an idiot is unintelligent - whereas they are surely guilty of irresponsible, inciteful and calculated malice.And I certainly don't label all who don't agree with my world view to be idiots - in fact I praised conservative intellectuals such as Buckley in that very post. But I do think the party has a serious problem with both the infestation of populist anti-intellectualism, and a lack of leadership prepared to confront its bad elements rather than pander to them. Thanks for clarifying TT. Much appreciated. A couple of further points. As far as the congressmen not vocalizing against the birthers. Assuming that the congressmen have a sincere belief that Obama is not a native born American then it is not Xenophobic to argue that he should not be President. It is part of the Constitution that it should be so. It is possible that they sincerely believe that. Same as some D's sincerely believe that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by Bush/Cheney. Also during the Bush era why didn't the D's reign in their most outrageous elements. Didn't happen then......don't ho9ld your breath that it will happen now.Drew's points don't just include the czar issue just go back and take a look. As a side point just because Bush done something doesn't mean Obama should too.D and R are both guilty of pandering to populists. I think this is partly why there is such a general dissatisfaction with politicians here. I heard a great quote that said we want leaders and statesmen not politicians.......IMHO We have no such people today from either side.DerekHi Derek,You're right that both parties can be guilty of populism (it's an ongoing and inherent danger in politics!) however regarding 9/11 at least, as far back as 2007 Obama is on record as not agreeing with truthers: http://www.infowars.net/articles/februa ... 7Obama.htm (I remember him being more vociferously and explicitly anti it too on the campaign trail, but can't find the transcript right now).Regarding Obama's birth, if a congressman doesn't agree with the 'birthers' and stays silent, he's pandering to racists and xenophobes. If he does agree with them in light of all of the available evidence, he's either a racist/xenophobe himself, or an idiot

[toddt]

Sept 22, 2009, 8:42am, remmet wrote:I posted this link in another thread, but for a glimpse into the mindset and intelligence level of the right-wing opposition, take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5YRichard Q.E.D

[llama]

Sept 22, 2009, 9:12am, toddt wrote:Sept 22, 2009, 8:46am, llama wrote:Thanks for clarifying TT. Much appreciated. A couple of further points. As far as the congressmen not vocalizing against the birthers. Assuming that the congressmen have a sincere belief that Obama is not a native born American then it is not Xenophobic to argue that he should not be President. It is part of the Constitution that it should be so. It is possible that they sincerely believe that. Same as some D's sincerely believe that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by Bush/Cheney. Also during the Bush era why didn't the D's reign in their most outrageous elements. Didn't happen then......don't ho9ld your breath that it will happen now.Drew's points don't just include the czar issue just go back and take a look. As a side point just because Bush done something doesn't mean Obama should too.D and R are both guilty of pandering to populists. I think this is partly why there is such a general dissatisfaction with politicians here. I heard a great quote that said we want leaders and statesmen not politicians.......IMHO We have no such people today from either side.DerekHi Derek,You're right that both parties can be guilty of populism (it's an ongoing and inherent danger in politics!) however regarding 9/11 at least, as far back as 2007 Obama is on record as not agreeing with truthers: http://www.infowars.net/articles/februa ... 7Obama.htm (I remember him being more vociferously and explicitly anti it too on the campaign trail, but can't find the transcript right now).Regarding Obama's birth, if a congressman doesn't agree with the 'birthers' and stays silent, he's pandering to racists and xenophobes. If he does agree with them in light of all of the available evidence, he's either a racist/xenophobe himself, or an idiot Of course Steele denounced the birthershttp://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republ....-is-us-citizen/The recently disgraced Van Jones and now former D rep Cynthia McKinney are too high profile D's who come to mind as "truthers". Does that also make them "idiots" ;-)I have 3 friends who can not be convinced otherwise that 9/11 was an inside job. They're very intelligent people but hate Bush with a passion and love Obama with the same level of passion. We still discuss politics and manage to survive the event. But I think it's sad how their independent critical thinking gets turned off when discussing politics. It happens all too often... No understanding for ideas outside their narrow realm, no critical thinking, just tow the partisan line.......Derek

[mojobone]

We have a special word in Indiana that describes the extreme right-wing Republican base; They're ignernt, bless their hearts. (you can say any awful thing you like about a person, as long as you follow it with, "bless his heart") Ignorant (three syllables) is one level of not knowing a thing or a group of things, means you maybe were just never exposed to the knowledge, like a heathen who never heard of Jesus, and there's no shame in it, cuz ignorance can be cured. Ignernt (two syllables) is a whole 'nother level of not knowing something, it means willfully and stubbornly denying the truth that's right in front of your eyes, and being proud of it. There is no known cure for ignernt.

[llama]

Sept 22, 2009, 10:41am, mojobone wrote:We have a special word in Indiana that describes the extreme right-wing Republican base; They're ignernt, bless their hearts. (you can say any awful thing you like about a person, as long as you follow it with, "bless his heart") Ignorant (three syllables) is one level of not knowing a thing or a group of things, means you maybe were just never exposed to the knowledge, like a heathen who never heard of Jesus, and there's no shame in it, cuz ignorance can be cured. Ignernt (two syllables) is a whole 'nother level of not knowing something, it means willfully and stubbornly denying the truth that's right in front of your eyes, and being proud of it. There is no known cure for ignernt.and the xtreme left wing dem base are.......?

[toddt]

Sept 22, 2009, 10:50am, llama wrote:Sept 22, 2009, 10:41am, mojobone wrote:We have a special word in Indiana that describes the extreme right-wing Republican base; They're ignernt, bless their hearts. (you can say any awful thing you like about a person, as long as you follow it with, "bless his heart") Ignorant (three syllables) is one level of not knowing a thing or a group of things, means you maybe were just never exposed to the knowledge, like a heathen who never heard of Jesus, and there's no shame in it, cuz ignorance can be cured. Ignernt (two syllables) is a whole 'nother level of not knowing something, it means willfully and stubbornly denying the truth that's right in front of your eyes, and being proud of it. There is no known cure for ignernt.and the xtreme left wing dem base are.......?Less "ignore", more "rant"