Intelligence, education and party affiliation
George Plimpton
conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
he is to be a leftist. I found an interesting historical analysis that
appears to contradict that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_coalition#New_Deal_Coalition:_voting_.25_1948-1964
This shows the percentages of different demographic groups, including
breakdowns by education level, that voted for the Democrat in
presidential elections from 1948 to 1964. In all five elections, the
less education one had, the more prone to vote for the Democrat. Even
in 1964, when Johnson won in a landslide, only 52% of college educated
voters went for Johnson. By contrast, 62% of those with a high school
education and 66% of those with only a grade school education voted for
Johnson. Even in 1960, when Harvard graduate John Kennedy won, only 39%
of college educated voters voted for Kennedy. In 1952, when Adlai "The
Brain" Stevenson ran the first time, he got only 34% of the votes of
those with a college education, and that fell to 31% when he ran again
in 1956.
Academics, as opposed to people with college degrees, do tend to be
overwhelmingly Democrat, but that's a reflection of their utter
disconnection from reality, not their intelligence or educational
attainment.
soc.culture.african
> Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
> conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
> he is to be a leftist. I found an interesting historical analysis that
> appears to contradict that.
>
>
> This shows the percentages of different demographic groups, including
> breakdowns by education level, that voted for the Democrat in
> presidential elections from 1948 to 1964. In all five elections, the
> less education one had, the more prone to vote for the Democrat. Even
> in 1964, when Johnson won in a landslide, only 52% of college educated
> voters went for Johnson. By contrast, 62% of those with a high school
> education and 66% of those with only a grade school education voted for
> Johnson. Even in 1960, when Harvard graduate John Kennedy won, only 39%
> of college educated voters voted for Kennedy. In 1952, when Adlai "The
> Brain" Stevenson ran the first time, he got only 34% of the votes of
> those with a college education, and that fell to 31% when he ran again
> in 1956.
>
> Academics, as opposed to people with college degrees, do tend to be
> overwhelmingly Democrat, but that's a reflection of their utter
> disconnection from reality, not their intelligence or educational
> attainment.
Mr. Plimpton, is there really any connection between the three,
intelligence, education, and party affiliation? Seems to me to there
is a better relationship (affect only) between comic books, draft
beer, and a dog park. Although some dogs are a bit more liberal than
an academic. The little beast, left unattended, will shit on anybody's
lawn.
DCI
George Plimpton
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:12:59 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
>> conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
>> he is to be a leftist.
>
> are of being a racist, homophobic bigot, sleazy, greedy.
That's false. Most racists are leftists, and *all* leftists are racist.
George Plimpton
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:12:59 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
>> he is to be a leftist.
>
Because you're a coward, you snipped the relevant information. Here,
I'll restore it in order to wound you some more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_coalition#New_Deal_Coalition:_voting_.25_1948-1964
This shows the percentages of different demographic groups,
including breakdowns by education level, that voted for the
Democrat in presidential elections from 1948 to 1964. In all five
elections, the less education one had, the more prone to vote for
the Democrat. Even in 1964, when Johnson won in a landslide, only
52% of college educated voters went for Johnson. By contrast, 62%
of those with a high school education and 66% of those with only a
grade school education voted for Johnson. Even in 1960, when
Harvard graduate John Kennedy won, only 39% of college educated
voters voted for Kennedy. In 1952, when Adlai "The Brain"
Stevenson ran the first time, he got only 34% of the votes of those
with a college education, and that fell to 31% when he ran again in
1956.
Leftists are not as smart as libertarians and conservatives. Proved.
Amused
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:12:59 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
> >conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
> >he is to be a leftist.
>
> are of being a racist, homophobic bigot, sleazy, greedy.
Ample written evidence shows that leftists are generally of
lower intelligence, anti-social, and use the same narrow group
of words over and over.
They lack the ability to judge character, and they do not
believe in complying with any laws, even those of their own
making such as hate crime laws.
Leftists never accept responsibility for their mistakes.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
>Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
>conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
>he is to be a leftist. I found an interesting historical analysis that
>appears to contradict that.
>
Only appears that to you because you are an idiot.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_coalition#New_Deal_Coalition:_voting_.25_1948-1964
>
>This shows the percentages of different demographic groups, including
>breakdowns by education level, that voted for the Democrat in
>presidential elections from 1948 to 1964. In all five elections, the
>less education one had, the more prone to vote for the Democrat. Even
>in 1964, when Johnson won in a landslide, only 52% of college educated
>voters went for Johnson. By contrast, 62% of those with a high school
>education and 66% of those with only a grade school education voted for
>Johnson. Even in 1960, when Harvard graduate John Kennedy won, only 39%
>of college educated voters voted for Kennedy. In 1952, when Adlai "The
>Brain" Stevenson ran the first time, he got only 34% of the votes of
>those with a college education, and that fell to 31% when he ran again
>in 1956.
>
>Academics, as opposed to people with college degrees, do tend to be
>overwhelmingly Democrat, but that's a reflection of their utter
>disconnection from reality, not their intelligence or educational
>attainment.
“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they
have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be
too much of a good thing” Karl Rove
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
>On 8/16/2011 7:11 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:12:59 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
>>> conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
>>> he is to be a leftist.
>>
>> We've found that the more conservative you are, the more chances you
>> are of being a racist, homophobic bigot, sleazy, greedy.
>
>That's false. Most racists are leftists, and *all* leftists are racist.
Um, what?
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
It's the poverty that skews results you idiot. But if you weren't
such an uneducated fool then you would not be drawing the wrong
conclusions from bad data.
de...@dudu.org
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!
you're just another Tea Party nutjob who hates everyone, aren't you?
The right wing is the idealogy of hate. Always has been.
Jerry Rizzi
Can't you read, you retard?
Even YOU proudly said yer afraid of Jews, like yer hero Hitler.
soc.culture.african
> d...@dudu.org wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:32:01 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> > wrote:
>
>
> >>>On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:12:59 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
> >>>>conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
> >>>>he is to be a leftist.
>
> >>>We've found that the more conservative you are, the more chances you
> >>>are of being a racist, homophobic bigot, sleazy, greedy.
>
> >>That's false. Most racists are leftists, and *all* leftists are racist.
>
> > Um, what?
>
> Can't you read, you retard?
> Even YOU proudly said yer afraid of Jews, like yer hero Hitler.
When did he ever say that?
DCI
George Plimpton
Is English not your native language? What's the problem? The sentence
is very clear and unambiguous.
Jerry Rizzi
You must be new here.
He says it all the time, and then Lookout(his boy friend) parrots him.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
I was asking you to clarify your bold faced lie. ALL leftists are
racists? Really? Is that the best lie you can come up with? Doesn't
matter to you that progressives have been fighting racism since the
Civil War. To make such an absurd claim only shows just how much into
the bottom of the barrel you are. You would actually be funny if you
weren't so pathetic.
George Plimpton
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:21:38 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2011 6:08 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:32:01 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/16/2011 7:11 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:12:59 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
>>>>>> conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
>>>>>> he is to be a leftist.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've found that the more conservative you are, the more chances you
>>>>> are of being a racist, homophobic bigot, sleazy, greedy.
>>>>
>>>> That's false. Most racists are leftists, and *all* leftists are racist.
>>>
>>> Um, what?
>>
>> Is English not your native language? What's the problem? The sentence
>> is very clear and unambiguous.
>
> I was asking you to clarify your bold faced lie.
There is no lie at all.
> ALL leftists are racists? Really?
Yes.
> Is that the best lie you can come up with? Doesn't
> matter to you that progressives have been fighting racism since the
> Civil War.
Now, there's a nice ripe lie. "Progressives" - who represent the
antithesis of progress - didn't even come into existence until the 20th
century.
> To make such an absurd claim only shows just how much into
> the bottom of the barrel you are.
There is no absurdity to the claim. Left-wing ideology, which in no way
represents progress, is intrinsically racist. It's intrinsically racist
because it is fundamentally based on the idea that race matter - that
race *should* matter. Left-wing ideology believes group identity, of
which race is one example, is defining. That is inherently racist.
The left - *all* leftists - believe that race should be considered for
university admission, employment, various government programs. That's
racism.
The left is racist - QED.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAA!!
Shit, you are one sick, brainwashed cocksucker.
Too funny.
War is peace, and black is white, too, right nutjob?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!
You are totally insane, of course.
Jerry Rizzi
Get a Job, you retard.
Lincoln was the REPUBLICAN President, who as the Commander in Chief
that took care of R.E.Lee... the guy that wanted to keep those "pesky
Niggra's" down, like YOU still do.
Lee would have had the same fear of Jews, like you do now, had there
been a lot of them here at the time.
George Plimpton
The left supports race preference. That's racist - end of story.
Jerry Rizzi
And Republicans were "really Democrats" back in the 1860's, right, you
retard?
George Plimpton
This fuckwit 'dudu' just can't seem to come to grips with or appreciate
the fact that virtually everything that has been done by leftists
supposedly "for" minorities, specifically blacks, since 1964 was in fact
done *TO* them, not for them. Affirmative action, forced schools
busing, family-destroying welfare programs, "hate crimes" legislation -
*ALL* of this made blacks worse off, and to the extent similar
"benevolence" was extended to other HAMs ("historically aggrieved
minorities", heh heh heh), it made them worse off, too.
Fucking hell, Moynihan wrote about all of this more than 40 years ago.
Jerry Rizzi
As the saying goes: "You can tell a Progresive to teach, but ya can't
teach them much."
George Plimpton
I'd settle just for making them see that their label has no connection
whatever to progress. "Progressivism" is the antithesis of progress -
it leads to a neo-feudalism.
Gray Ghost
news:4e4c0703$0$21176$607e...@cv.net:
Actually i'm not sure Lee was a slave owner, and it certainly didn't factor
into his calculations.
--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)
Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had as much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?
George Plimpton
It's not clear if Lee personally owned slaves. His father-in-law did,
and Lee is alleged to have ordered the whipping of slaves while running
his father-in-law's plantations, and even of having personally whipped a
slave.
Although the Wikipedia entry is hardly authoritative or comprehensive, a
section portrays Lee as likely to have been in favor of the ultimate end
of slavery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Lee.27s_views_on_slavery
Like Lincoln, Lee probably didn't care much about slavery as an issue in
the War Between the States. Lincoln wasn't waging the war to end
slavery, and Lee wasn't fighting to preserve it.
Jerry Rizzi
Who cares?
Lee only disagreed with Lincoln, because Lee's home state, Virginia.
seceded.
Lee WAS on Lincoln's side after all.
Sign of a loser with no morals.
Gray Ghost
Huh?
> Sign of a loser with no morals.
Actually Lee was quite a moral, God fearing man. He never allowed the
atrocities that Sherman made policy.
wy
> Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
> conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
> he is to be a leftist. I found an interesting historical analysis that
> appears to contradict that.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_coalition#New_Deal_Coalition:_v...
>
> This shows the percentages of different demographic groups, including
> breakdowns by education level, that voted for the Democrat in
> presidential elections from 1948 to 1964. In all five elections, the
> less education one had, the more prone to vote for the Democrat. Even
> in 1964, when Johnson won in a landslide, only 52% of college educated
> voters went for Johnson. By contrast, 62% of those with a high school
> education and 66% of those with only a grade school education voted for
> Johnson. Even in 1960, when Harvard graduate John Kennedy won, only 39%
> of college educated voters voted for Kennedy. In 1952, when Adlai "The
> Brain" Stevenson ran the first time, he got only 34% of the votes of
> those with a college education, and that fell to 31% when he ran again
> in 1956.
>
> Academics, as opposed to people with college degrees, do tend to be
> overwhelmingly Democrat, but that's a reflection of their utter
> disconnection from reality, not their intelligence or educational
> attainment.
Stoopid Plimpton uses stats for 1948-64 when there was only 5%-10% of
the population who were college educated, so it says absolutely
nothing about anything. Now that 30% are college educated and a
Democrat got voted in, what does that say? Still nothing. Nothing
but Stoopid Plimpton.
Jerry Rizzi
Huh what?
Read about him AND Lincoln.
Lee stuck with his STATE to defend it, instead of what was right.
>> Sign of a loser with no morals.
> Actually Lee was quite a moral, God fearing man. He never allowed the
> atrocities that Sherman made policy.
"God Fearing" means nothing in todays modern world...unless you actually
fear one will kill you if you don't convert...right?
And I don't see Lee or Sherman printed on any of my currancy.
Although they did name a nice tank after Sherman!
Strabo
Their mothers didn't.
George Plimpton
> 1948-64 when there was only 5%-10% of
> the population who were college educated
So??? If more educated / more intelligent people tended to be
"liberal", you *STILL* would expect to see the relative shares reversed,
you stupid cunt. That is, if being more educated made you more liberal,
you would expect to see a higher percentage of high school graduates
than non-graduates vote Democrat, a higher percentage of college
graduates than high school graduates, and so forth. But we see the
*OPPOSITE* of that. Ha ha ha ha ha!
> Now that 30% are college educated and a
> Democrat got voted in, what does that say?
Ha ha ha! You *STILL* lose, fuckwit.
2008 electoral results by education - percentage voting for Obama:
No high school diploma: 63%
High school graduate: 52%
Some college: 51%
College graduate: 53%
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
Hussein won 53% of the popular vote, so college graduates exactly
matched that. The reason the "college graduate" percentage jumps back
up is because so many more people who graduate college now go to
graduate school, too, and stay in academia. This is proved by looking
at the 2004 results, where those with some grad school are split out;
percentages are those who voted for Kerry:
No high school diploma: 50%
High school graduate: 47%
Some college: 46%
College graduate: 46%
Postgrad study: 55%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
So, the reason the college graduate percentage jumps back up above the
"some college" level in 2008 is because the grad school people are
lumped in with them - if they were split off, the college graduate
percentage voting for Obama would undoubtedly have been lower than the
"some college" percentage.
Here's how it works: the more education you have, the more you realize
that illiberal "liberalism" is predicated on an immature,
unsophisticated view of how the world operates - that is, your eyes are
opened more widely and you can see that left-wing proposals are bullshit.
wy
> On 8/17/2011 1:19 PM, wy wrote:
>
> > 1948-64 when there was only 5%-10% of
> > the population who were college educated
>
> So??? If more educated / more intelligent people tended to be
> "liberal", you *STILL* would expect to see the relative shares reversed,
> you stupid cunt. That is, if being more educated made you more liberal,
> you would expect to see a higher percentage of high school graduates
> than non-graduates vote Democrat, a higher percentage of college
> graduates than high school graduates, and so forth. But we see the
> *OPPOSITE* of that. Ha ha ha ha ha!
>
> > Now that 30% are college educated and a
> > Democrat got voted in, what does that say?
>
> Ha ha ha! You *STILL* lose, fuckwit.
>
> 2008 electoral results by education - percentage voting for Obama:
>
> No high school diploma: 63%
> High school graduate: 52%
> Some college: 51%
> College graduate: 53%
Stupid figures. That means they all add to 219%. Shouldn't they all
add up to 100%? Fuck, you're dumb.
>
> http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
>
> Hussein won 53% of the popular vote, so college graduates exactly
> matched that. The reason the "college graduate" percentage jumps back
> up is because so many more people who graduate college now go to
> graduate school, too, and stay in academia. This is proved by looking
> at the 2004 results, where those with some grad school are split out;
> percentages are those who voted for Kerry:
>
> No high school diploma: 50%
> High school graduate: 47%
> Some college: 46%
> College graduate: 46%
> Postgrad study: 55%
Stupid math again. They all add up to 244%. Shouldn't they add up to
100%? What a total goofball you are.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls....
>
> So, the reason the college graduate percentage jumps back up above the
> "some college" level in 2008 is because the grad school people are
> lumped in with them - if they were split off, the college graduate
> percentage voting for Obama would undoubtedly have been lower than the
> "some college" percentage.
>
> Here's how it works: the more education you have, the more you realize
> that illiberal "liberalism" is predicated on an immature,
> unsophisticated view of how the world operates - that is, your eyes are
> opened more widely and you can see that left-wing proposals are bullshit.
Or, the more education one has, the more likely one doesn't end up as
stoopid as you who thinks 219% and 244% are each the same as 100%.
Fuck, you're damn self-taught stoopid, which is about the best
education you got.
Jerry Rizzi
Also, AFAIC, there is no such THING as "atrocities" during war time.
The "object" of war is what?
IMHO, it's to win!
Kill the other side.
How?
Obliterate.
Destroy.
Ridicule.
Demoralize.
Make THEM give up!
In any order you want, the end result is always going to be:
Make THEM give up!
Do YOU think we should have "rules of war", all "agreed upon" and
written down in a silly country famouse for chocolate,cuckoo clocks, and
hidden bank accounts?
Isn't that really the most STUMP STUPID thing ever?
Sure, people get fugly and commit "atrocities".
So what?
Do you think people that don't even know what geneva is, cares?
Making "rules" for war that allow nations or groups to make it more
legal or pretty is MORE of an atrocity.
Want to stop a war?
KILL every single thing in your path.
As William Tecumseh Sherman is famouse for; "in recognition for his
outstanding command of military strategy AS WELL AS criticism for the
harshness of the "scorched earth" policies."
My kinda guy.
I think we also did exceedingly well with our "experiments" in Japan on
August 6th and 9th, 1945.
I say we FedEx another "experiment" to Pyongyang AND Tehran when the
weather is JUST right.
Then where will DooDoo look up to and run?
George Plimpton
> On Aug 17, 4:49 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 8/17/2011 1:19 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>> 1948-64 when there was only 5%-10% of
>>> the population who were college educated
>>
>> So??? If more educated / more intelligent people tended to be
>> "liberal", you *STILL* would expect to see the relative shares reversed,
>> you stupid cunt. That is, if being more educated made you more liberal,
>> you would expect to see a higher percentage of high school graduates
>> than non-graduates vote Democrat, a higher percentage of college
>> graduates than high school graduates, and so forth. But we see the
>> *OPPOSITE* of that. Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>
>>> Now that 30% are college educated and a
>>> Democrat got voted in, what does that say?
>>
>> Ha ha ha! You *STILL* lose, fuckwit.
>>
>> 2008 electoral results by education - percentage voting for Obama:
>>
>> No high school diploma: 63%
>> High school graduate: 52%
>> Some college: 51%
>> College graduate: 53%
>
> Stupid figures. That means they all add to 219%.
Ho-lee-fuck. "That means they all add to 219%." HA HA HA HA HA HA!
You fucking leftard moron!
Dumb fucking leftist: 63% of those with no high school diploma voted
for Obama; 37% of those with no high school diploma voted for someone
else. 52% of high school graduates voted for Obama; 48% of high school
graduates voted for someone else. 63% + 37% = 100%; 52% + 48% = 100%.
> Shouldn't they all add up to 100%?
Yeaouregehuuigguiizzzzz: this guy is one of *yours*!
wy
I see you fell for that one. But I knew you would. Soooo
stoooooopid.
George Plimpton
>> On 8/17/2011 1:19 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>> 1948-64 when there was only 5%-10% of
>>> the population who were college educated
>>
>> So??? If more educated / more intelligent people tended to be
>> "liberal", you *STILL* would expect to see the relative shares reversed,
>> you stupid cunt. That is, if being more educated made you more liberal,
>> you would expect to see a higher percentage of high school graduates
>> than non-graduates vote Democrat, a higher percentage of college
>> graduates than high school graduates, and so forth. But we see the
>> *OPPOSITE* of that. Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>
>>> Now that 30% are college educated and a
>>> Democrat got voted in, what does that say?
>>
>> Ha ha ha! You *STILL* lose, fuckwit.
>>
>> 2008 electoral results by education - percentage voting for Obama:
>>
>> No high school diploma: 63%
>> High school graduate: 52%
>> Some college: 51%
>> College graduate: 53%
>
> Stupid figures. That means they all add to 219%. Shouldn't they all
> add up to 100%?
<chortle>
>
>>
>> http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
>>
>> Hussein won 53% of the popular vote, so college graduates exactly
>> matched that. The reason the "college graduate" percentage jumps back
>> up is because so many more people who graduate college now go to
>> graduate school, too, and stay in academia. This is proved by looking
>> at the 2004 results, where those with some grad school are split out;
>> percentages are those who voted for Kerry:
>>
>> No high school diploma: 50%
>> High school graduate: 47%
>> Some college: 46%
>> College graduate: 46%
>> Postgrad study: 55%
>
> Stupid math again. They all add up to 244%. Shouldn't they add up to
> 100%?
<GUFFAW!>
>
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls....
>>
>> So, the reason the college graduate percentage jumps back up above the
>> "some college" level in 2008 is because the grad school people are
>> lumped in with them - if they were split off, the college graduate
>> percentage voting for Obama would undoubtedly have been lower than the
>> "some college" percentage.
>>
>> Here's how it works: the more education you have, the more you realize
>> that illiberal "liberalism" is predicated on an immature,
>> unsophisticated view of how the world operates - that is, your eyes are
>> opened more widely and you can see that left-wing proposals are bullshit.
>
> Or, the more education one has, the more likely one doesn't end up as
> stoopid as you who thinks 219% and 244% are each the same as 100%.
<sides splitting>
>
> Fuck, you're damn self-taught stoopid, which is about the best
> education you got.
<choking half to death with laughter>
George Plimpton
I see *you* really thought the numbers ought to add up to 100%, you dumb
fucking Obama voter.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
Get some help you sick fucking hate freak. You're quoting numbers you
don't even know what they mean. Add statistics to yet another subject
you clearly never went to college on.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
>> Fuck, you're damn self-taught stoopid, which is about the best
>> education you got.
>
><choking half to death with laughter>
says the moron who thinks neo-feudalism will come out of
progressivism. Feudalism is clearly a conservative right wing
phenomenon in which a very small elite class owns and controls
everything. Clearly that is most like corporatism and fascism and is
purely conservativism gone wild. And Pimpleton calls other people
stupid when he keeps proving he's never even heard of a political
science class let alone ever attended one.
George Plimpton
I know exactly what they mean, deepdouchebag. Your fucking innumerate
left-wing cretin buddy thought all those percentages should add up to
100%. He, and you, are morons.
63% of people with no high school diploma voted for Obama. That means
37% of people with no high school diploma voted for someone else. 63% +
37% = 100%, deepdouchebag. Those percentages given are percentages of
*different* groups that voted for Obama. They wouldn't add up to 100%,
deepdouchebag, because they're across different groups.
Holy mother of fuck, you idiot leftists are even more stupid than I had
thought.
George Plimpton
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:25:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>> Fuck, you're damn self-taught stoopid, which is about the best
>>> education you got.
>>
>> <choking half to death with laughter>
>
> says the moron who thinks neo-feudalism will come out of
> progressivism.
It will. "Progressives", who are opposed to progress, don't like where
the Renaissance and Enlightenment have brought us. They want to go back
to a time when people were serfs to whatever state they were born in.
The paramount position of the individual just chaps the asses of
"progressives" - they want the individual to be subordinate to something
greater: his class. That's neo-feudalism.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
>On 8/17/2011 3:38 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:25:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Fuck, you're damn self-taught stoopid, which is about the best
>>>> education you got.
>>>
>>> <choking half to death with laughter>
>>
>> says the moron who thinks neo-feudalism will come out of
>> progressivism.
>
>It will. "Progressives", who are opposed to progress,
That's just plain stupid. Progressives don't oppose progress, you
idiot. Conservatives oppose progress, by definition.
> don't like where
>the Renaissance and Enlightenment have brought us. They want to go back
>to a time when people were serfs to whatever state they were born in.
You are a complete moron. That is exactly what the wealthy
corporatists are doing. They want to own and control everything.
>The paramount position of the individual just chaps the asses of
>"progressives" - they want the individual to be subordinate to something
>greater: his class. That's neo-feudalism.
Like I said, you never even heard of political science let alone ever
studied any.
George Plimpton
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:44:10 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2011 3:38 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:25:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Fuck, you're damn self-taught stoopid, which is about the best
>>>>> education you got.
>>>>
>>>> <choking half to death with laughter>
>>>
>>> says the moron who thinks neo-feudalism will come out of
>>> progressivism.
>>
>> It will. "Progressives", who are opposed to progress,
>
> That's just plain stupid. Progressives don't oppose progress,
Yes, absolutely they do.
> Conservatives oppose progress, by definition.
Nope. Actually, conservatives are too optimistic about progress.
>
>> don't like where
>> the Renaissance and Enlightenment have brought us. They want to go back
>> to a time when people were serfs to whatever state they were born in.
>
> You are a complete moron. That is exactly what the wealthy
> corporatists are doing.
Nope - it's what the "progressives", who hate progress, wish to achieve.
>> The paramount position of the individual just chaps the asses of
>> "progressives" - they want the individual to be subordinate to something
>> greater: his class. That's neo-feudalism.
>
> Like I said, you never even heard of political science let alone ever
> studied any.
Look away from the mirror, bozo.
wy
Well, you just proved that they do. Not only did you fall for it, but
you're now denying your own proof. What a baboon.
Jeff M
Hogwash. The Renaissance and Enlightenment, along with the the US
Constitution, are products of progressive liberalism, achieved despite
the bitter resistance of the conservatives of their day and their fruits
still under broad assault by the conservatives of today, and are still
being defended and advanced by the liberal progressives of today.
"A Day in the Life of a True Conservative
Joe Conservative wakes up in the morning and goes to the bathroom. He
flushes his toilet and brushes his teeth, mindful that each flush &
brush costs him about 43 cents to his privatized water provider. His
wacky, liberal neighbor keeps badgering the company to disclose how
clean and safe their water is, but no one ever finds out. Just to be
safe, Joe Conservative boils his drinking water.
Joe steps outside and coughs–the pollution is especially bad today, but
the smokiest cars are the cheapest ones, so everyone buys ‘em. Joe
Conservative checks to make sure he has enough toll money for the 3
different private roads he must drive to work. There is no public
transportation, so traffic is backed up and his 10 mile commute takes an
hour.
On the way, he drops his 12 year old daughter off at the clothing
factory she works at. Paying for kids to go to private school until
they’re 18 is a luxury, and Joe needs the extra income coming in. Times
are hard and there’s no social safety nets.
He gets to work 5 minutes late and misses the call for Christian prayer,
and is immediately docked by his employer. He is not feeling well today,
but has no health insurance, since neither his employer nor his
government provide it, and paying for it himself is really expensive,
since he has a precondition. He just hopes for the best.
Joe’s workday is 12 hours long, because there is no regulation over
working hours, and Joe will lose his job if he complains or unionizes.
Today is an especially bad day. Joe’s manager demands that he work until
midnight, a 16 hour day. Joe does, knowing that he’ll lose his job if he
does not.
Finally, after midnight, Joe gets to pick up his daughter and go home.
His daughter shows him the deep cut she got on the industrial sewing
machine today. Joe is outraged and asks why she doesn’t have metal mesh
gloves or other protection. She says the company will not provide it and
she’ll have to pay for it out of her own pocket. Joe looks at the wound
and decides they’ll use an over the counter disinfectant and bandages
until it heals. She’ll have a scar, but getting stitches at the
emergency room is expensive.
His daughter also complains that the manager made suggestive overtures
towards her. Joe counsels her to be a “good girl” and not rock the boat,
or she’ll get fired and they’ll be out the income.
His daughter says she can’t wait until she’s 18 so she can vote for
change or go to the Iraq War.
They get home and there’s a message from his elderly father who can’t
afford to pay his medical or heating bills. Joe can hear him coughing
and shivering.
Joe turns on the radio and the top story is a proposal in Congress to
raise the voting age to 25. A rare liberal opinionator states that it’s
an attempt to keep power out of the hands of working class Americans.
The conservative host immediately quashes him, calling him “a utopian
idealist,” and agreeing that people aren’t mature enough to make good
choices until they’re at least 25.
Joe chuckles at the wine-swilling, cheese eating liberal egghead and
thinks, “Thank God I live in America where I have freedom!” "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_Day_In_The_Life_of_Joe_Conservative
George Plimpton
You proved that you believed those numbers ought to add up to 100%,
because you didn't know what they represented. You are monumentally stupid.
George Plimpton
> On 8/17/2011 5:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 8/17/2011 3:38 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:25:52 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Fuck, you're damn self-taught stoopid, which is about the best
>>>>> education you got.
>>>>
>>>> <choking half to death with laughter>
>>>
>>> says the moron who thinks neo-feudalism will come out of
>>> progressivism.
>>
>> It will. "Progressives", who are opposed to progress, don't like where
>> the Renaissance and Enlightenment have brought us. They want to go back
>> to a time when people were serfs to whatever state they were born in.
>> The paramount position of the individual just chaps the asses of
>> "progressives" - they want the individual to be subordinate to something
>> greater: his class. That's neo-feudalism.
>
> Hogwash. The Renaissance and Enlightenment, along with the the US
> Constitution, are products of progressive liberalism,
No - *classical* liberalism. The "progressive" movement stood
liberalism on its head and it became illiberal. "Liberal" today is
fully illiberal - it is the antithesis of liberalism.
Jeff M
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'" - Lewis
Carroll
Jeff M
More hogwash. You've swallowed the sophist distortion of history that
seeks to deny the truth, strip liberalism of due credit for its real
accomplishments, deny conservative guilt and assuage conservatism's
shame for opposing that which even they must now acknowledge as decent,
right and good.
Gray Ghost
$607e...@cv.net:
You are getting tiresome.
Yes there are such things as atrocities in war. The moment you forget that
you become the evil you are trying to overcome. And I say that as a
beleiver in the Total War philosophy.
Tedder Harris was a fool and did commit atrocities. His offensive to
flatten German cities destroyed quite a bit of culture as well as
civilians. And actually did little to help the war, in fact it made things
more difficult for the ground troops when they got there.
The bombing of specific targets for specific outcomes was far less wasteful
of life on all sides. Read what Speer had to say, discover which attacks
frightened him the most and came closet to ending the war in 1944. They
weren't any of Harris's city razing raids.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
Gotta admit their propaganda machine has been very effective. How
brainless wonders like Mr Pimplebutt can keep insisting that things
are exactly opposite of their standard universally accepted
definitions despite enless amounts of data that proves them wrong.
Jeff M
They're backward people, with backward views, looking backward to a
mythical past with their backward perception of reality. Are you
surprised that they've got their understanding of these things backward?
If they grasped things as they really are, they could hardly remain
very conservative for long, could they?
wy
Try not to edit out the pertinent stuff next time:
George Plimpton
Nope. Believe it or not, the idea of "progressivism" being
neo-feudalism was something I thought of myself. Imagine my surprise
when I did a web search on that and found quite a lot of other people
have reached the same conclusion.
Classical liberalism put the individual person at the center. Moral
value was inherent in the individual person. Liberalism became
corrupted and perverted at the beginning of the 20th century and
subordinated the individual person to various vague notions of
"collective good." That turned liberalism into something illiberal and
tyrannical. This is simply so.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
No wonder conservatives are so against education. They know the more
ignorant they can keep people the more likely they are to remain
conservative.
“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they
have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be
too much of a good thing” Karl Rove
George Plimpton
The backward people are the left-wing "progressives", who want to *UNDO*
the progress of classical liberalism and return the individual person to
some state of subordination to something supposedly greater than
himself. In the original feudalism, it was his estate and the church.
Today, it's some bullshit "common good." In either, it makes a serf out
of the individual person. That's bad.
Liberals Think You Can Domesticate Animals
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 8/17/2011 6:08 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> >>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On 8/16/2011 7:11 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
> >>>>>>conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
> >>>>>>he is to be a leftist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We've found that the more conservative you are, the more chances you
> >>>>>are of being a racist, homophobic bigot, sleazy, greedy.
> >>>>
> >>>>That's false. Most racists are leftists, and *all* leftists are racist.
> >>>
> >>>Um, what?
> >>
> >>Is English not your native language? What's the problem? The sentence
> >>is very clear and unambiguous.
> >
> >
> > I was asking you to clarify your bold faced lie. ALL leftists are
> > racists? Really? Is that the best lie you can come up with? Doesn't
> > matter to you that progressives have been fighting racism since the
> > Civil War. To make such an absurd claim only shows just how much into
> > the bottom of the barrel you are. You would actually be funny if you
> > weren't so pathetic.
>
>
> Get a Job, you retard.
> Lincoln was the REPUBLICAN President, who as the Commander in Chief
> that took care of R.E.Lee... the guy that wanted to keep those "pesky
> Niggra's" down, like YOU still do.
> Lee would have had the same fear of Jews, like you do now, had there
> been a lot of them here at the time.
Obviously Lincoln was a very intelligent man. He saw the
problems niggers were causing then, and if the Democrats had not
fouled up the works by refusing funding to ship them home,
America might very well be nigger free today.
Look at all the problems niggers cause today. Nothing has
changed, including liberal stupidity.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
>>>> More hogwash. You've swallowed the sophist distortion of history that
>>>> seeks to deny the truth, strip liberalism of due credit for its real
>>>> accomplishments, deny conservative guilt and assuage conservatism's
>>>> shame for opposing that which even they must now acknowledge as decent,
>>>> right and good.
>>>
>>> Gotta admit their propaganda machine has been very effective. How
>>> brainless wonders like Mr Pimplebutt can keep insisting that things
>>> are exactly opposite of their standard universally accepted
>>> definitions despite enless amounts of data that proves them wrong.
>>
>>
>> They're backward people, with backward views,
>
>The backward people are the left-wing "progressives", who want to *UNDO*
>the progress of classical liberalism and return the individual person to
>some state of subordination to something supposedly greater than
>himself. In the original feudalism, it was his estate and the church.
>Today, it's some bullshit "common good." In either, it makes a serf out
>of the individual person. That's bad.
You're batshit crazy. You've been convinced everything evil in the
world is "liberalism" even though the exact opposite is true.
Conservatism is the ideology of greed and selfishness. Liberalism is
the idealogy of egalitarianism.
George Plimpton
Contemporary "liberalism", which is entirely illiberal, is neo-feudalism.
RM V2.0
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:z-mdnQH10NluotHT...@giganews.com...
> On 8/17/2011 2:17 PM, wy wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 4:49 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2011 1:19 PM, wy wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1948-64 when there was only 5%-10% of
>>>> the population who were college educated
>>>
>>> So??? If more educated / more intelligent people tended to be
>>> "liberal", you *STILL* would expect to see the relative shares reversed,
>>> you stupid cunt. That is, if being more educated made you more liberal,
>>> you would expect to see a higher percentage of high school graduates
>>> than non-graduates vote Democrat, a higher percentage of college
>>> graduates than high school graduates, and so forth. But we see the
>>> *OPPOSITE* of that. Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>
>>>> Now that 30% are college educated and a
>>>> Democrat got voted in, what does that say?
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha! You *STILL* lose, fuckwit.
>>>
>>> 2008 electoral results by education - percentage voting for Obama:
>>>
>>> No high school diploma: 63%
>>> High school graduate: 52%
>>> Some college: 51%
>>> College graduate: 53%
>>
>> Stupid figures. That means they all add to 219%. Shouldn't they all
>> add up to 100%?
>
funny.
George Plimpton
Yep. That's a left-winger for you. After I pointed it out, he
comically tried to pretend he knew they shouldn't, but he's lying.
Gray Ghost
@g9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> 2008 electoral results by education - percentage voting for Obama:
>>
>> No high school diploma: ÿ63%
>> High school graduate: ÿ ÿ52%
>> Some college: ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ51%
>> College graduate: ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ53%
>
> Stupid figures. That means they all add to 219%. Shouldn't they all
> add up to 100%? Fuck, you're dumb.
>
Chicago rules.
George Plimpton
What is with these Tea Party female politicians? What chance to the
Republicans possibly have of evicting the Kenyan from the White House if
they keep letting these three crones represent the party to the public?
Did anyone see O'Donnell's meltdown on Piers Morgan's program?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OOgvKfg7Gg&feature=player_embedded This
is just unbelievable...or it would be, if O'Donnell (and Palin and
Bachmann) hadn't already set the precedent for being unprepared, and
then petulant when it's pointed out.
khadijahbi...@gmail.com
Because they're news. You never know when something newsworthy is going
to be said or will happen.
But, more broadly, I agree. We need MUCH more attention paid to Kristi
Noem and Nikki Haley. They are far more typical of the new GOP politician.
Khadijah
max headroom
> http://students.cis.uab.edu/black790/Macbeth4.jpg
>
> What is with these Tea Party female politicians? ...
talk.politics.GUNS
Bert
<geo...@si.not> wrote:
> What is with these Tea Party female politicians?
What are you talking about?
> Did anyone see O'Donnell's meltdown on Piers Morgan's program?
Other than the handful of professional media whatchers whose job
requires them to watch the program, probably not more than a handful of
folks saw it.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Sid9
"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9F45751A1B7...@216.250.188.140...
She's of no interest to anyone but her immediate familty
George Plimpton
Sorry, but Noem looks like she's right from the Palin/Bachmann/O'Donnell
mold to me. Couldn't find much about Haley.
George Plimpton
I'm not saying anything about Southerners, Yaerougiguhiuizzz. I'm
talking about illiberal "liberals".
Why do you even bother, boy? You're clearly overmatched.
khadijahbi...@gmail.com
OK, that's a rather surprising response. And, what's so hard finding
stuff on Haley:
What exactly concerns you about Palin et al? Tone? Speaking style? Shoot
from the hip? Noem doesn't have any similarity to their look and feel in
the least. She's a well informed, disciplined legislator who has been
well prepared whenever I've seen her.
Or, is there something ELSE you don't like about Palin/Bachman/ODonnell
that you're not getting at.
But, I'll raise you a Jaime Herrera. Someday, we'll find somebody you
like. :-)
http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/
Khadijah
MittTheMormon
BACHMANN PALIN O'DONNELL
George Plimpton
> On 11-08-18 11:48 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 8/18/2011 9:13 AM, Khad...@forteinc.com wrote:
>>> On 11-08-18 10:40 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> http://students.cis.uab.edu/black790/Macbeth4.jpg
>>>>
>>>> What is with these Tea Party female politicians? What chance to the
>>>> Republicans possibly have of evicting the Kenyan from the White
>>>> House if
>>>> they keep letting these three crones represent the party to the public?
>>>>
>>>> Did anyone see O'Donnell's meltdown on Piers Morgan's program?
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OOgvKfg7Gg&feature=player_embedded This
>>>> is just unbelievable...or it would be, if O'Donnell (and Palin and
>>>> Bachmann) hadn't already set the precedent for being unprepared, and
>>>> then petulant when it's pointed out.
>>>
>>> Because they're news. You never know when something newsworthy is going
>>> to be said or will happen.
>>>
>>> But, more broadly, I agree. We need MUCH more attention paid to Kristi
>>> Noem and Nikki Haley. They are far more typical of the new GOP
>>> politician.
>>
>> Sorry, but Noem looks like she's right from the Palin/Bachmann/O'Donnell
>> mold to me. Couldn't find much about Haley.
>
> OK, that's a rather surprising response. And, what's so hard finding
> stuff on Haley:
>
> http://www.nikkihaley.com/
I looked at the Wikipedia entries for both of them. Noem's entry had
statements about her positions on various issues, and they showed she's
pretty much in line with Palin and Bachmann on most issues.
>
> What exactly concerns you about Palin et al? Tone? Speaking style? Shoot
> from the hip?
1. Woeful ignorance; in fact, willful stupidity. Palin not being able
to identify any newspapers she reads - because she doesn't read
them, or any other independent news source - was extremely
revealing. She doesn't care about keeping up on current events -
she has no curiosity, just like "Uncurious George" W. Bush.
Palin's comments about Paul Revere riding to "warn the British",
and Bachmann's statement that the Founding Fathers opposed slavery,
indicate abject stupidity. Palin and O'Donnell *both* not being
able to cite a single Supreme Court decision with which they
disagreed, despite both of them making criticism of bad SCOTUS
decisions fundamental parts of their campaigns, was just
disgraceful. It was even worse in O'Donnell's case, because Palin
had already been caught out on the question.
2. Stubbornness in defending their stupidity. Both Palin and Bachmann
insisted, and continue to insist, that they were right about Paul
Revere and the Founding Fathers' opposition to slavery, respectively.
3. Politics of resentment. All three of them, especially Palin and
Bachmann, appeal to an angry, bitter, down-market, unthinkingly
conservative constituency. Their appeal is to people who resent
the sneering and contempt aimed at them not only by urban
sophisticates, who indeed are left-wing, but also by the business
and foreign policy wings of the Republican party. I did a search
on Palin + "politics of resentment" and Google reported over 83,000
hits; fewer when substituting Bachmann for Palin, but still
considerable. Some of the hits, when I read them, tie back to
point #1, because they segue to the politics of know-nothingism,
which is also accurate. Just *look* at how Palin's and Bachmann's
partisans jumped in and began editing the Wikipedia pages for Paul
Revere and John Quincy Adams after Palin and Bachmann blabbered
their ignorance about them.
> Noem doesn't have any similarity to their look and feel in
> the least. She's a well informed, disciplined legislator who has been
> well prepared whenever I've seen her.
That may be. I haven't seen her speak. Nonetheless, that Wikipedia
page indicates her positions match theirs on all those social-values
issues. I have no doubt as well that she probably supports the
inclusion of creationism in public schools' science curriculum, and
believes that global warming is "just a theory" that needs more
research. There's that know-nothingism again. The fact of global
warming - the rise in the average temperature of the earth's surface -
is beyond rational dispute. What is in dispute, by some, is the cause.
[brief pause]
I just went to look to see if I could find her position on global
warming, and the first thing that came up was pretty embarrassing for
her. While in the South Dakota legislature, she voted in favor of a
typical Republican bill to avoid doing anything about global warming,
and sure enough, it says that "global warming is a scientific theory
rather than a proven fact." But even worse, it says:
That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological,
*astrological*, thermological, cosmological, and ecological
dynamics that can effect [sic] world weather phenomena and that the
significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely
speculative... [emphasis added]
Yep: there are "astrological" dynamics that can "effect" [sic] world
weather phenomena. It was a *ONE PAGE* resolution, so she can't
complain (as she did about the health care bill) that it was "too long"
to read and comprehend.
I also looked for her position on evolution, and I couldn't find
anything definitive, but she likely believes in creationism; see
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politicalblog/?p=6465.
I am convinced, tentatively, that Noem (at least) is firmly in the
know-nothing wing of the Republican party and Tea Party movement, right
along with Palin and Bachmann and O'Donnell. Opinions like that are
subject to revision, as I am open-minded, but I wouldn't bet on it
happening.
>
> Or, is there something ELSE you don't like about Palin/Bachman/ODonnell
> that you're not getting at.
>
> But, I'll raise you a Jaime Herrera. Someday, we'll find somebody you
> like. :-)
>
> http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/
Never heard of her before. Interesting last name - I know a family
named Beutler, and have never heard the name attached to anyone else.
George Plimpton
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:40:10 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> What is with these Tea Party female politicians? What chance to the
>> Republicans possibly have of evicting the Kenyan from the White House if
>> they keep letting these three crones represent the party to the public?
>
>
Nope - not "my" Republican party, because I am not a Republican.
Go fish.
khadijahbi...@gmail.com
Well, you started out talking about style, now you're making it a matter
of positions. Confused me. >
Fair enough. I think these are all reasonable issues as to why they're
not viable candidates in a national sense.
Khadijah
SaPeIsMa
>
> What is with these Tea Party female politicians? What chance to the
> Republicans possibly have of evicting the Kenyan from the White House if
> they keep letting these three crones represent the party to the public?
>
> Did anyone see O'Donnell's meltdown on Piers Morgan's program?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OOgvKfg7Gg&feature=player_embedded This
> is just unbelievable...or it would be, if O'Donnell (and Palin and
> Bachmann) hadn't already set the precedent for being unprepared, and
> then petulant when it's pointed out.
What "meltdown"
The idiot interviewer couldn't take either the hint or even the direct
statements that she chooses not to respond to those issues
She then chose to move on and spend her time in a more productive way
The idiot interviewer seemed to think that somehow by repeating herself he
could force her hand
She basically told him to stick it..
A very ballsy and smart move on her part
But it does take an idiot like you to call a "dismissal" a "meltdown" ..
SaPeIsMa
"Khad...@forteinc.com" <khadijahbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kSa3q.162211$rv2.1...@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
I think she has brass
She stood up to an idiot who imagined that by brow-beating her, he could
force a response from her.
She stood up to him and won the exchange by dropping him like the turd he
was.
SaPeIsMa
He probably hasn't looked
He was just trying to label them
A practice, so typical of the left.
If you can label something, particularly with a negative label, then you
can summarily dismiss it as well.
George Plimpton
I don't think it was mainly about style. I said they're unprepared
(substance), and then petulant when their lack of preparation blows up
in their faces (somewhat style.) But petulance is *not* merely a matter
of style - that indicates something about their character, how they're
going to react under stress in office.
What's so distressing is they somehow manage to push reasonable people
like Pawlenty off the stage entirely. It's usually conservatives who
complain about the American infatuation with celebrity, but these four
women - Palin, Bachmann, O'Donnell and now Noem - are all People
Magazine fodder, and are prominent due to the same infatuation. Yes,
they're all good looking women, but if down-market know-nothings think
they're an avenue to political influence, I hope to hell they're
completely wrong.
I know the least about Noem, but the other three are far more worked up
about the things and values they're against rather than what they're
for, and when they do advance anything resembling a positive agenda -
things they want to do - they all seem like bad ideas to me.
George Plimpton
It was a meltdown, and it was stupid on her part, whether or not it was
planned as a stunt. It was perfectly legitimate for Morgan to ask her
about the topic: it is in her book, and she's on an interview tour to
promote the book, for the love of fuck. She should expect to be asked
about anything in the book, and she should be prepared to answer it.
Did she not answer it because she was unprepared, or was it because she
knows the answer is going to sink her?
This kind of thing is typical for these Tea Party candidates,
particularly the women. They *continually* try to portray themselves as
being "victimized" by the media. The advice to stay the hell out of the
kitchen if you can't stand the heat still applies.
George Plimpton
If you're talking about O'Donnell rather than Noem, then you're
completely wrong: O'Donnell shot herself in the ass.
Jeff M
Face it, these are the standard-bearers for the new conservative
movement, the very best they have to offer, each one a sterling example
of the intellectual gravitas the movement has to contribute to the
American polity.
George Plimpton
Regrettably, they are the standard bearers, but they are far from the
best the movement has to offer. For some reason, they have an
exceptional appeal to their bases, who are as I have described them.
Jeff M
Fellow traveler, co-conspirator, cheerleader, whatever.
Jeff M
And . . . she is not a witch.
George Plimpton
Nope - not even close.
khadijahbi...@gmail.com
Well, hang on.
THEY didn't push Pawlenty off. Bachmann did, but it was actually the
voters who did.
I expect that's more of a visual, though. It's not Tim Pawlenty's fault
he looks like Gomer Pyle. Nowadays, you have to look like the President,
not just sound like the President, in order to be considered for the job.
> It's usually conservatives who
> complain about the American infatuation with celebrity, but these four
> women - Palin, Bachmann, O'Donnell and now Noem - are all People
> Magazine fodder, and are prominent due to the same infatuation. Yes,
> they're all good looking women, but if down-market know-nothings think
> they're an avenue to political influence, I hope to hell they're
> completely wrong.
What it really tells you is that there are so many people so
unbelievably PO'd at what's gone on in this country (primarly
economically) that the "red meat" public figures get more run than they
usually would.
Conservatives. Not GOPers, but conservatives, are hotter than hell and
will vote for anyone who sounds like they understand the problem and
will go to war to fix it. I am not at all convinced that they'll LIKE
the solutions when the real ones start appearing, but they're all driven
by the common thought that politicians have spent way too much time
concerning themselves (and spending money on) this or that or this war
or that war without giving any thought to what to what sort of fiscal
management is required to make sure the country is still around for our
kids.
That's just my two cents, but that's what I think is going on.
>
> I know the least about Noem, but the other three are far more worked up
> about the things and values they're against rather than what they're
> for, and when they do advance anything resembling a positive agenda -
> things they want to do - they all seem like bad ideas to me.
There's a dearth of good ideas from both sides right now. Why? Well, on
the right. the negative sells more than the positive, and on the left, I
expect there's resignation that the federal government and pet
entitlements must shrink.
Khadijah
Jeff M
All the bad ideas circulating out there drown out any actually good
idea, so that it can't get any traction or notice, not to mention that
any good idea probably just isn't politically viable right now.
George Plimpton
That's the problem: the Tea Party base. That's who votes in primaries.
John
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:12:59 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
>>conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
>>he is to be a leftist.
>
>
> We've found that the more conservative you are, the more chances you
> are of being a racist, homophobic bigot, sleazy, greedy.
>
Lefties are the result of a young immature mind. Most grow up and out of
this situation but some never do.
khadijahbi...@gmail.com
Probably not. It may take until after the actual nominations are made
until that happens.
Khadijah
khadijahbi...@gmail.com
That's where the energy is right now. In 2008, it was the "hope/change"
crowd. Happens every cycle, it seems, where the energy all goes to one
subset of one party.
Khadijah
John
> On 8/16/2011 7:11 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:12:59 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Leftists commonly like to brag that leftists are more intelligent than
>>> conservatives, and that the more education a person has, the more likely
>>> he is to be a leftist.
>>
>>
>> We've found that the more conservative you are, the more chances you
>> are of being a racist, homophobic bigot, sleazy, greedy.
>
>
> That's false. Most racists are leftists, and *all* leftists are racist.
The last election proved that when they all voted for obummer because he
was black.
George Plimpton
I'm deeply suspicious of young conservatives (or even libertarians) and
old leftists. Conservative, and especially libertarian, thinking must
be earned with painfully acquired wisdom that almost always comes only
with age. Young people are supposed to be leftists - it's normal and
probably even desirable. But there's nothing sadder than an aging
leftist. There's an enormous amount of Peter Pan in them - a refusal to
grow up.
There are various versions of the expression, and I've heard it
attributed to any number of western philosophers or pundits, but the
expression is apt:
If at age 20 a man is not a socialist, he has no heart;
If at age 50 a man is still a socialist, he has no brain.
George Plimpton
And when all his partisans accuse *any* critic of Obama, no matter what
the substance of the criticism, of being a racist for criticizing Obama.
It's just unbelievable that they can't see how racist that is...and
condescending toward Obama. It says that the most important thing about
him is his race. He's enough the cynical politician that he'll use his
race for political reasons, but I doubt he thinks the most significant
thing - the *only* significant thing - about his presidency is his race.
SaPeIsMa
> On 11-08-18 02:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> 3. Politics of resentment. All three of them, especially Palin and
>> Bachmann, appeal to an angry, bitter, down-market, unthinkingly
>> conservative constituency. Their appeal is to people who resent
>> the sneering and contempt aimed at them not only by urban
>> sophisticates, who indeed are left-wing, but also by the business
>> and foreign policy wings of the Republican party. I did a search
>> on Palin + "politics of resentment" and Google reported over 83,000
>> hits; fewer when substituting Bachmann for Palin, but still
>> considerable. Some of the hits, when I read them, tie back to
>> point #1, because they segue to the politics of know-nothingism,
>> which is also accurate. Just *look* at how Palin's and Bachmann's
>> partisans jumped in and began editing the Wikipedia pages for Paul
>> Revere and John Quincy Adams after Palin and Bachmann blabbered
>> their ignorance about them.
>
> Fair enough. I think these are all reasonable issues as to why they're not
> viable candidates in a national sense.
>
> Khadijah
The claim about Palin getting the Paul Revere story is FALSE.
Revere WAS STOPPED by the British and he DID WARN them that they were
facing resistance
SO is the claim that Bachman people started re-writing Wiki to cover up the
so-called mistake..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/07/earlyshow/main20069649.shtml
This is part of that standard defamation from the left, that relies on the
ignorance of the same leftists.
George Plimpton
>
> "Khad...@forteinc.com" <khadijahbi...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:7Kd3q.149202$nZ1....@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 11-08-18 02:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> 3. Politics of resentment. All three of them, especially Palin and
>>> Bachmann, appeal to an angry, bitter, down-market, unthinkingly
>>> conservative constituency. Their appeal is to people who resent
>>> the sneering and contempt aimed at them not only by urban
>>> sophisticates, who indeed are left-wing, but also by the business
>>> and foreign policy wings of the Republican party. I did a search
>>> on Palin + "politics of resentment" and Google reported over 83,000
>>> hits; fewer when substituting Bachmann for Palin, but still
>>> considerable. Some of the hits, when I read them, tie back to
>>> point #1, because they segue to the politics of know-nothingism,
>>> which is also accurate. Just *look* at how Palin's and Bachmann's
>>> partisans jumped in and began editing the Wikipedia pages for Paul
>>> Revere and John Quincy Adams after Palin and Bachmann blabbered
>>> their ignorance about them.
>>
>> Fair enough. I think these are all reasonable issues as to why they're
>> not viable candidates in a national sense.
>>
>> Khadijah
>
>
> The claim about Palin getting the Paul Revere story is FALSE.
> Revere WAS STOPPED by the British and he DID WARN them that they were
> facing resistance
It is *NOT* false. First, that is *NOT* the reason Revere rode in the
first place - had he not been stopped, he would not have communicated
any "warning" to the British. Second, he wasn't "warning" them - he was
trying to threaten them: basically, a bluff.
And just read Palin's statement to the reporters and try - *try* - not
to cringe:
"He who warned the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away
our arms by ringing those bells, and makin' sure as he's riding his
horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we
were going to be sure and we were going to be free."
Note that bag-of-hammers-stupid Palin says that the *bells* were rung to
"warn" the British!
You are wrong, but this is *typical* of the pig-headedness of Palin,
Bachmann *and* their know-nothing shit-4-braincell supporters.
> SO is the claim that Bachman people started re-writing Wiki to cover up
> the so-called mistake..
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/07/earlyshow/main20069649.shtml
Uh, dummy: that link has nothing to do with Bachmann and the efforts to
rewrite Wikipedia to try to cover their know-nothing asses. The link is
about Palin and her fuck-up... The Palin know-nothing brigade did, of
course, try to alter the Wikipedia page about Revere to cover up Palin's
fuck-up:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069360-10391715.html
Bachmann's know-nothing brigade - there are foot-soldiers in both
know-nothing brigades - did, indeed, try to edit the John Quincy Adams
page to try to promote him, posthumously, to the status of founding father:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/28/256227/john-q-adams-wiki-editing/
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/110814/bachmann-backers-edit-john-quincy-adams-wikipedia-page-emulate-palin-camp/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/06/28/michelle-bachmann-supporters-alter-wikipedia-to-make-john-quincy-adams-a-founding-father/
So, the know-nothings edit the pages to try to revise history to cover
up Bachmann's and Palin's fuck-ups, then they lie about having done it.
Classic!