Intellectuals Without Intellect

Bonnie

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2004
9,476
673
48
Wherever
www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=7372

John Kerry possessed reason, George Bush possessed faith. That's the consoling critique of the campaign by defeated liberals. But the truth is Kerry displayed neither. without credibel reason or faith, Kerry had nothing to offer Americans except experiments in radicalism.

To slavage their self-esteem, liberals are pushing the idea that they have lost the country but retained their reason. I hasn't yet dawned on them that they lost their country BECAUSE they lost their reason. Their irrational anger and tired theories weren't persuasive. The American people rejected Kerry because of an absence not only of authentic faith but also of reliable reasoning. His arguments were quite lame and couldn't hold up under questioning.

The reason why liberalism lacks any enduring appeal to ordinary Americans is not that it is too lofty but that it is too low. It is beneath the reasom of man. It appeals not to the mind of humans but to their irrational desires. Liberalism is far more about emotion than reason. Want to feel good about being bad? Liberalism will give you plenty of excuses to.But Americans can see that this is childish, self indulgent political philosophy that no civilization can run on for very long

"The Day the Enlightenment Went Out" was the post-election sob of Gary Willis in the New York Times, and captures the ratiojnalists-versus-religious -boobs analysis liberals are using to pep up their spirits. He wholly identifies liberalism with "reason" and "enlightenment" even as liberalism defies logic and sanctions barbaric practices. His enlightened conceit is a joke in light of the growing list of human rights abuses liberalism routinely justifies--from killing unborn children to the killing of the aged and weak to the cloning of human embryos for harvesting.
How many of the founders of this enlightened nation could pass the Wills' test? How many of them would agree with Gary Wills' views on abortion, euthanasia, cloning, sexual liberation?...............................
 
Excellent post, Bonnie. Every time liberals open their mouths, I'm struck by the Orwellian lunacy of it all.

A little off topic, but here's a honking irony: My copy of 1984 has a foreword by....Walter Cronkite!
 
musicman said:
Excellent post, Bonnie. Every time liberals open their mouths, I'm struck by the Orwellian lunacy of it all.

A little off topic, but here's a honking irony: My copy of 1984 has a foreword by....Walter Cronkite!

Now that is ironic :eek:
 
musicman said:
Excellent post, Bonnie. Every time liberals open their mouths, I'm struck by the Orwellian lunacy of it all.

A little off topic, but here's a honking irony: My copy of 1984 has a foreword by....Walter Cronkite!


Why ironic? Cronkite is a Liberal, and 1984 describes the policies and actions of neocons.


Regards,

Andy
 
Bonnie said:
John Kerry possessed reason, George Bush possessed faith. That's the consoling critique of the campaign by defeated liberals. But the truth is Kerry displayed neither.


Kerry lost because ultimately he was a weak candidate - a career politician with an unremarkable history.

Why a weak candidate for this election? because in 2003, when Bush numbers were stronger, no "Strong" Democrat wanted to step forward and risk their political capital running against an incumbent.

Of course, we now know that Iraq was a sham, and it led to deep resentment against Bush - however, with no adequately strong challenger, Bush managed to eek out a win. The narrowest win of any sitting president.

See:

(link removed by moderator)

Such a narrow win, against a weak candidate like Kerry, isn't much to get excited about.


Regards,

Andy
 
CivilLiberty said:
Why ironic? Cronkite is a Liberal, and 1984 describes the policies and actions of neocons.


Regards,

Andy



Oh, yeah - huge, cetralized government, speech codes, thoughtcrime, revisionist history, the manipulation of information for political ends...

Newt Gingrich is fairly frothing at the mouth.

If you're an Independent, I'm King Neptune.
 
musicman said:
Oh, yeah - huge, cetralized government, speech codes, thoughtcrime, revisionist history, the manipulation of information for political ends...

Yes, all features of the Bush administration. I'm fairly certain Karl Rove is using 1984 as a guide book!


Newt Gingrich is fairly frothing at the mouth.

If you're an Independent, I'm King Neptune.

I'm a Libertarian, as should be obvious.



Regards,


Andy
 
CivilLiberty said:
Yes, all features of the Bush administration. I'm fairly certain Karl Rove is using 1984 as a guide book!




I'm a Libertarian, as should be obvious.



Regards,


Andy



What are you smoking, man? Save me some. What the hell 1984 did you read?

A Libertarian, are you? I stand corrected. I'll rephrase, then. If you're not a liberal, I'm King Neptune. I think the old man's title is safe.
 
musicman said:
What are you smoking, man? Save me some. What the hell 1984 did you read?


I don't smoke nor use drugs of any kind, other than Aleve for this damn tooth. The 1984 I read was by George Orwell. which one are you talking about?

musicman said:
A Libertarian, are you? I stand corrected. I'll rephrase, then. If you're not a liberal, I'm King Neptune. I think the old man's title is safe.


Huh? I'm not a liberal - Libertarians are conservative.



Regards,


Andy
 
CivilLiberty said:
I don't smoke nor use drugs of any kind, other than Aleve for this damn tooth. The 1984 I read was by George Orwell. which one are you talking about?




Huh? I'm not a liberal - Libertarians are conservative.



Regards,


Andy



Sorry to hear about your tooth. That is hell. Feel better.

The 1984 I read was George Orwell's frightened wake-up call to the world. He had succumbed to the charms of Stalin and Mao, and saw them as the world's only hope. He then saw the physical implementation of the socialist utopian pipedream at the tender hands of these murderous tyrants, and realized his - and humanity's - horrible mistake. Socialism flies in the face of man's essentially depraved nature, and can only lead to totalitarianism. Human beings, possessing such power, can do nothing else. This is the worldview the liberals embrace so ardently. I will fight it with my dying breath.
 
CivilLiberty said:
Kerry lost because ultimately he was a weak candidate - a career politician with an unremarkable history.

Why a weak candidate for this election? because in 2003, when Bush numbers were stronger, no "Strong" Democrat wanted to step forward and risk their political capital running against an incumbent.

Of course, we now know that Iraq was a sham, and it led to deep resentment against Bush - however, with no adequately strong challenger, Bush managed to eek out a win. The narrowest win of any sitting president.

See:

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/125133.htm

Such a narrow win, against a weak candidate like Kerry, isn't much to get excited about.


Regards,

Andy

Beg to differ ..... this was the most important election in at least a generation.....

Why?

1. The war on terror.... if Kerry had won the election, the direction of the war on terror would definitely have changed and the resolve to wipe out the terrorists would have not been there. This would no doubt confirm the terrrorists' belief that America is nothing more than a paper tiger when it comes to dealing with its enemies. Historically, the terrorists are looking at what we did in Vietnam when we cut and run. They are banking on that in Iraq. With Bush at the helm again, the terrorists are going to have to hold on another 4 years. It is extremely unlikely that Bush will change course.

2. The Supreme Court ... for the first time in over a generation, several Supreme Court justices will be retiring from the bench. Rehnquist is already gone, due to his failing health. Bush now has the opportunity to ensure that conservative jurists are placed in the highest court of the land. Conservative jurists will probably change the course of the court from one that interprets the Constitution in a very broad way (e.g. Roe vs Wade and Lawrence vs. Texas) to one that interprets the Constitution to a narrow and strict way.

3. Privitization of Social Security -- for the first time, a President is willing to tackle the problems with the Social Security system. THis will require tremendous political will and will not be an easy task. However, ignoring the problem will only allow the problem to get worse.
 
CivilLiberty said:
Of course, we now know that Iraq was a sham, and it led to deep resentment against Bush - however, with no adequately strong challenger, Bush managed to eek out a win. The narrowest win of any sitting president.

Wrong. Clinton won the 96 election with fifty percent. Dole received 42 percent and Perot 8 percent.
http://www.multied.com/elections/1996pop.html

In this election Bush received 51 percent to 48 percent for kerry and 1 percent for all others.
http://network.ap.org/dynamic/files...onal/pres.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS


Adding the total vote is the only fair way to view the statistics, but then that would not support your spin.
 
The President won by a larger margin than zero and after all is said and done that's all that matters, that being the fact that he won.

Narrowest victory ever? A cry so pathetic I almost pity those who make it.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Adding the total vote is the only fair way to view the statistics, but then that would not support your spin.


Why is that the "only fair way"? Because you said so? Or because it better supports your position?

You can spin the numbers many different ways. As an example, "Bush received more votes than any president in history".

Okay. It is also true that "Kerry received more votes than Reagan, and Kerry received the second largest number of votes in history".

The point is, the nation is deeply divided - Bush won a few percent more votes than Kerry - that still leaves about half the nation opposed. That certainly wasn't the case with Nixon or Reagan, both of whom trounced their opponents.

Perot is considered to have taken votes from both sides. Did he take more from Dole? Perhaps - but considering that about half of those who voted for Perot in 92 later voted for Clinton in 96, one could say that all the votes for Perot in 96 were not taken from Dole.

We'll never really know the outcome of a 96 election with no Perot, so we're only guessing - but with no strong 3rd party in this 2004 election, it's difficult to make a real comparison.

Regardless, the margin of victory over the next strongest candidate is a perfectly "fair" way of looking at the data - it's as "fair" as other methods, which is to say that no method of election comparison can be completely "fair" as each election has it's own set of unique circumstances that will bias any attempt to normalize outcomes.

Regards,



A
 
Zhukov said:
The President won by a larger margin than zero and after all is said and done that's all that matters, that being the fact that he won.


Like the voting booth comment, it's "not" all that matters - society is not a simple tabulation of votes. Society os composed of living humans that are all part of the equation. Yes the president won, but the margin of the win is an important indication of the strength of his support and/or opposition.

Certainly, with a Republican House and Senate, he virtually has carte blanc to do as he pleases for the next two years. But the grand scheme of things is certainly more complicated than "he won and that's all that matters".


Regards

Andy
 
CL said:
But the grand scheme of things is certainly more complicated than "he won and that's all that matters".
No, I'm afraid it is that simple.

We have only one President, and the length of his term of office, his authority, and his power are in no way altered by the margin of his victory.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007
Bonnie said:
www.spectator.org/util/print.asp?art_id=7372

John Kerry possessed reason, George Bush possessed faith. That's the consoling critique of the campaign by defeated liberals. But the truth is Kerry displayed neither. without credibel reason or faith, Kerry had nothing to offer Americans except experiments in radicalism.

Yes john kerry was probably the biggest stuffed shirt the dems have thrown out there to run for President ever. But I can't help but think they did it knowing he would lose. You have to know the dems are ALREADY primping hitlery for her '08 Presidential run.

God help us all.
 
Bonnie said:
Now that is ironic :eek:

yeah, i know. We had to read this book for my senior year english class, and i didn't even know (much less care) who walter cronkite was.

I never really understood, or even appreciated the book until this year actually. In 12th grade, I found politics boring, the book was boring. I now understand the book better, and have a better appreciation for it, because it points out liberal loves like "newspeak"=Political Correctness, "thoughtcrimes"=racism/hate crimes, mind reprogramming=diversity training, government control over every aspect of your life=a liberal's ideal world.
 
fuzzykitten99 said:
yeah, i know. We had to read this book for my senior year english class, and i didn't even know (much less care) who walter cronkite was.

I never really understood, or even appreciated the book until this year actually. In 12th grade, I found politics boring, the book was boring. I now understand the book better, and have a better appreciation for it, because it points out liberal loves like "newspeak"=Political Correctness, "thoughtcrimes"=racism/hate crimes, mind reprogramming=diversity training, government control over every aspect of your life=a liberal's ideal world.



My take exactly.
 
fuzzykitten99 said:
yeah, i know. We had to read this book for my senior year english class, and i didn't even know (much less care) who walter cronkite was.

I never really understood, or even appreciated the book until this year actually. In 12th grade, I found politics boring, the book was boring. I now understand the book better, and have a better appreciation for it, because it points out liberal loves like "newspeak"=Political Correctness, "thoughtcrimes"=racism/hate crimes, mind reprogramming=diversity training, government control over every aspect of your life=a liberal's ideal world.

Another interesting read along the lines of this subject is Farenheit 411.

Orwell really nailed it, and they say Nostradamus was good, I think not!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top