Democrats versus Republicans

[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

OsmundL - I believe cam is referring to letting her take all the media heat

I knew
Thought it was time to lighten up.

[OsmundL]

First, I wish to be very clear that I will not blurt out opinions on US politics. I stumbled into saying some words on Obama, have no idea how it started. If one of you venture to tell me what to think of my prime minister I’d probably be a little tense also. I’ll argue till I am blue about “left” and “right” but not Reps/Dems and such. If I have, apologies.

Next, I may be allowed to come with a question as an outsider looking in?
There seems to be an astonishing anger against the recently instated president. As someone observing over a long time, this perplexes me: Why him? Surely, everyone here is aware that things were utterly stuffed up before? The rest of the world gave a sigh of relief when the new guy came, thinking it can only get better. In fact, we expect too much of him.

In summary: Well before Obama, the questions we had about your leaders were:
Did someone nuke their brains?
Were they not the full quid?
Whacko?
Did they have bats in the belfry? (a good British expression)
Were they off with the birds?
Drongo?
Lamb-brained?
Ga-ga?
Did they go feral?
Troppo?
Did they have kangaroos loose in the top paddock?

In short, we thought your past leadership was as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike - or tits on a bull, if you prefer.

I think it can only get better.
Why don’t you?

[Dutch1951]

'A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats."
Benjamin Franklin

“The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency.”
Henry David Thoreau

Lawyers are the biggest part of the problem.... then again so are both the Democrats and Republicans. We need to act like Human beings for a change. America will never improve until Americans can learn to agree to disagree sometimes, to respect each others beliefs whether we agree with them or not, and not force them on each other. I think it's time for a strong third party... a "Common Sense" party. Until then we are just spinning our wheels. Dem's come in and change everything while they have the power, Repubs come in and do the same. it's like being stuck on a sand bar with two tugs trying to pull you off in different directions. All it ends up doing is pulling the boat apart and you go no where but to the bottom. Which is where we are headed. I am taxed to drive on Americas roadways, waterways, airways, I don't mind. And I don't mind that my fellow Americans that aren't paying as much (or any tax) to do these same things. Why should I fight to help supply my fellow Americans with health care. We just to make sure that the system is fair and provides quality care without wasting tax dollars. I'll shut up now, I am so fried at what we have become.... I'm sure our founding fathers would crap their collective pants if they could see where we have taken the dream of freedom we once had. Nuf said....

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

So when I say it isn't the source of education that matters most, but the desire to learn, I have a personal example to go by.

No problem there. I have my own personal example....just looking in the mirror! I have no disagreement as to whether it is possible to get ahead without a college education - or even without a high school education!

However, you asked about examples of anti-intellectualism, NOT whether it was possible for someone who didn't go to college to excel. If you asked that question, I would 100% agree.

See, agreement.....

My dad got married and had kids young - dropped out of college in the first year. He ended up owning a business with 40 employees (a supplier to Sears Catalog) and also owning large amounts of Real Estate. He did it 100% on his own, by being frugal and working 60+ hours a week.

I did somewhat the same...got married and had kids early...no advanced schooling, self-taught in construction, computers, retail, manufacturing, inventing, etc.

So I agree 100%. In fact, I'll go even further and say that education can work against some people.....that is, a narrow education can often conflict with common sense.

I remember well....I invented and patented a product, and one of the guys who was going to help me sell them brought over the first load of them (from a foundry) in the trunk of his car. He opened his car trunk outside and looked at them and asked me "how are we going to get them inside?" Note: they weighed 12 lbs apiece!

I just grabbed two and said "carry them!".

Luckily for me, I fell into some hard work and real world (construction) trades after I got married (at 20 years old). Basically, there is almost NO job I was not willing to do - I mowed lawns, cleaned basements, installed attic fans, framed houses....and, then, was given a chance at better work (installing kitchens, building additions).

In any case, the topic is/was anti-intellectualism, and I do believe that some on the right....and maybe these are just the "leaders" or the "talking heads" or the "pr types".....but that they use this. If you are a conservative and an intellectual, this should worry you as much as it does me. Yes, I cringe when I hear the same type of stuff from the left.....I think "they are not speaking for me".

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

OsmundL - I believe cam is referring to letting her take all the media heat, while others do all the talking. Notice, she hasn't really given any major speeches since the election, yet the media can't seem to let go.

Oh, and Palin attended the University of Idaho, not Hillsdale. I used Hillsdale as it is a small University where even students can't recieve federal funds (aid, grants, etc)

Just for accuracy in media:
" Sarah Palin attended five colleges in six years before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987.Federal privacy laws prohibit the schools from disclosing her grades, and none of the schools contacted by The Associated Press could say why she transferred"

Although it is very normal to attend two colleges (community and another...or decide you don't like the first one), it is NOT normal to attend 5 colleges in six years. They also could not find club affiliations, etc.

Comparing that with Editor of the Harvard Law Review is a little tough.

As to her taking the heat - as the VP candidate who put herself in the spotlight - and who has been running her mouth ever since - she has become a perfect example of anti-intellectual part of the party. Even quasi-intellectuals like Pat Buchanan think she is qualified to be President. Honestly, it is hard to take that seriously. Not only would Obama beat her 100 to 1 in any test of world and common knowledge, but I consider myself (and everyone here!) much smarter than her. We don't need folks with 150+ IQ's to be President, but we do need the basics covered, IMHO.

If the GOP put forward some actual educated people (Pawlenty, etc.) as front men, I could at least then debate the actual issues. But putting folks like GW and Palin up and telling us they are deep thinkers....just does not make it (IMHO).

[wind_magic]

On the dumbing down of political discourse ...

Yes, of course both major parties dumb down the message for the masses, especially by the time it hits the television. I think it's easy to forget that there is a good reason for that - the simple fact is that the mean human IQ in the United States (it varies by country) is 98 [1] meaning that half of the people in the country have a lower IQ and half higher. Yes, it is important for us to debate what interest rates are going to do at the bottom of the deflation and how that will be affected by the countries percentage of debt to GDP, but you know .. most people really don't care about that, especially the ones who get their news from MSNBC and Fox.

I agree with Craigimass and PBz that IQ/intelligence isn't always the deciding factor in success (obviously, or high school debate geeks would get more action from the ladies), a lot of things go into determining success - organization, planning, courage, strength, resources, luck, connections, and a multitude of other things, but being smart doesn't seem to cause any harm either (unless you use your intelligence as a crutch to help you avoid gaining strength in other areas).

On the subject of Palin, I don't know, the Democrat's fascination with Palin is only matched by the Republican's fascination with Barney Frank, I don't get it, but then again I don't sit around trying to figure it out either.

[craigimass]

Heck, I didn't think it was another "here is why Obama is inexperienced" thread - I thought we rolled around to PB actually asking...and wanting...examples of what we perceive as anti-intellectualism on the right.

I don't remember anyone saying "no one on the right has an education or a valid opinion". In fact, I....and I would assume others....would like to see reasoned arguments and debates from various points of view.

I guess that is why a guy like Obama appointed a TOP Republican today....to become our leading diplomat to China. That would seem one of the most important jobs in the world. And Obama would choose someone like that.....because he uses REASON and not ideology....to make such decisions.

Did McCain use reason to select Palin as VP? Do conservatives use reason when they defend her selection or approve of Limbaugh as the most prominent voice in their party?

Only McCains mom has the gonads (so to speak) to say "That man has NOTHING to do with the Republican party I know and belong to". Seems no one else can scratch up the "intellectualism" to say the same.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

"I think it can only get better.
Why don’t you?"

I only need to reference one industry to prove that "government intervention" is almost never a good idea.

late '70's early-mid '80's... British Leyland... nuff said.

Uh, so the bullet trains in Japan and Europe and China are now examples of why government intervention is almost ALWAYS a good idea?

Or our success in the space program and in building the interstates and other such ventures.....also proves the same?

One example certainly does not prove anything......a perfect example, IMHO, of anti-intellectualism.

[Selkirk]

You didn't ask none o' me, Cardiac, but no, I don't believe you're "being smarmy". ' Fact, I think you've got a pretty good grip on how well government programs work. They just don't......well, unless those governments are hell bent on killing people. After all, they developed a right proper nuke.

But look at what they're doing to GM & Chrysler. Somehow, the government arrived at the conclusion that part of the problem was that there were TOO MANY dealers. "Yeah..We'll just make 'em close up all those dealers - the ones that buy cars and try to sell 'em - and that'll make the car companies more efficient".....WTH??!!

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by cardiacpaul

I'm not much of a conspiracy guy, but it does make me pause to consider his "reasons" for the selection.

Uh, could the fact that the man speaks FLUENT Mandarin have anything to do with it? Just saying........

After all, how many folks who are qualified to be in that position speak the language?

Obama does not seem like the type to set up people to take the falls for him. Sure, there is always some political calculation in these things (keep your friends close and your enemies closer), but at the same time Obama has MANY republicans in his administration.....or, I should say Republicans and former Bush appointees.

To me, that seems like a good thing....assuming the people are qualified.