The Intellectual Professor in Chief.

[del]

Why is being an intellectual a negative with the conservative right?

Because "intellectualism" keeps giving us pinheads like Obama.

This coming from a party that idolized Joe the Plummer?

at least they could spell joe the plumber.

 

[Oldandtired]

with the fdifference being that you did not feel the need to resort to name calling, currsing, and ranting as you offered your opinon.

You are quite misguided.

Listen you hack....


Stop being a hack and add something to the debate.

lol.....great comeback...again!

You are just way too easy....I need someone with ideas to debate....you aint got nuttin!

yeah, phony.

Really dont see the cursing and name calling...unless you see hack as name calling....I simply see that as expressing my feelings of your approach to a debate..

But please...continue....

You are coming across like a child.

I shall name you...."Child Obama"....

Get used to it. Every post I see of yours I will respond with "spoken by the Child Obama" in bold and in 5 point font.

Thanks for your time Child Obama.

 

[Oldandtired]

because "intellectualism" keeps giving us pinheads like obama.

this coming from a party that idolized joe the plummer?

at least they could spell joe the plumber.

lmao....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

this coming from a party that idolized joe the plummer?

at least they could spell joe the plumber.

lmao....

And we don't say "plum-Ber"

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Do Obama really call somebody a corpse????

 

[beowolfe]

Gerard Alexander: Why are liberals so condescending? - washingtonpost.com

Great editorial if you want to read the whole thing.

I see both sides as being condescending at times (me included). They are condenscending to each other in different ways. Liberals are condescending in the way humans get with other humans after explaining something a thousand times and the other person still doesn't get it.

Conservatives are condescending in they KNOW they are right, even when they are wrong and they chastise others for not KNOWING that the Conservatives were right.

I believe you have that backwards. I have been coming to and participating in forum debates on politics for over ten years. I have yet to see any real originality in replies from most liberals, even after their points have been proven wrong. I am guilty of condescending towards liberals because I'm tired of debunking the same old talking points, year after year. And the real problem with this stems from the fact that people who claim they have just entered into these debates are using the exact same phrases as liberals were making 10 years ago. They like to call people stupid, but they themselves cannot even be bothered to think about the issue and come up with their own beliefs. It is a form of plagiarism that no one seems to want to confront.

Liberals just say they are right, post a few charts from someone else who has actually done the research and then spend the rest of their time in childish name calling as a means of bolstering their own ego.

Both sides are guilty of condescension, to be sure. However, I see the problem in issue debate to be one associated with the left.

IMO, if you truly try to be objective, you see that both sides regurgitate the talking points issued by their camp's politicians. You see very little 'original thought' on political message boards. Why? Because that would lead to intelligent discussion and god forbid the people should engage in that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Or does Obama the intellectual, Mr. 57 states and people from Michigan are "Michianers", confuse corps and corpse?

Yeah... he's a real smart fella! Or is he just a fart smella?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Makes me wanna say "nucular"

 

[Oldandtired]

I see both sides as being condescending at times (me included). They are condenscending to each other in different ways. Liberals are condescending in the way humans get with other humans after explaining something a thousand times and the other person still doesn't get it.

Conservatives are condescending in they KNOW they are right, even when they are wrong and they chastise others for not KNOWING that the Conservatives were right.

I believe you have that backwards. I have been coming to and participating in forum debates on politics for over ten years. I have yet to see any real originality in replies from most liberals, even after their points have been proven wrong. I am guilty of condescending towards liberals because I'm tired of debunking the same old talking points, year after year. And the real problem with this stems from the fact that people who claim they have just entered into these debates are using the exact same phrases as liberals were making 10 years ago. They like to call people stupid, but they themselves cannot even be bothered to think about the issue and come up with their own beliefs. It is a form of plagiarism that no one seems to want to confront.

Liberals just say they are right, post a few charts from someone else who has actually done the research and then spend the rest of their time in childish name calling as a means of bolstering their own ego.

Both sides are guilty of condescension, to be sure. However, I see the problem in issue debate to be one associated with the left.

IMO, if you truly try to be objective, you see that both sides regurgitate the talking points issued by their camp's politicians. You see very little 'original thought' on political message boards. Why? Because that would lead to intelligent discussion and god forbid the people should engage in that.

Which, of course, you try so hard to do.

Stop taking the high road. We ask for substance, you gfive us speculation. We cite facts, you say "but Bush did it too".

Sorry Bro......nice try.

 

[del]

But you bozos will spin it and make up yet again more stupid arguments to say how these aren't accomplishment, like the good trolls/morons you are


Obama's accomplishments ( again, you may not like what he did, doesn't mean he has "done nothing"

1. Mended diplomatic relationships with many of the countries Bush pissed off. Displayed a respect for other countries and their cultures, and is willing to hear other countries out.

Proof this was needed and did anything for us please. I said concrete accomplishments.

2. Passed the stimulus package, in which the results are yet to be seen, since the economy doesn't magically recover overnight

Proof it WILL work. He said unemployment will not go above 8%. SO that was a failure. He ORIGINALLY said it will create (not save) 2 million jobs in 2009. That failed

3. Stepped up efforts in Afghanistan, which had gotten out of control
That was at the insistance of his field general...but I will let you have that one

4. Brought the healthcare debate to the forefront of political issues. May not have gotten anyting passed yet, but at least many people are talking about it, maybe a compromise is on the horizen.
So did Hillary in 1994...not a concrete accomplishment

5. named Sotomayor to the SCOTUS
Naming a SCOTUS is a responsibility...not an accomplishment

6. Won the nobel peace prize
Not an accomplishment as a President for the people. But a great personal accomplishment

Please list his accomplishments...not what they have you believing he has done with no prooof....just words.

just like I said, more idiocy. Those are accomplishments, no proof required if htey are good, since for many of them, only time will tell. Just because YOU think they are no good, doesn't mean that they are not.


And its an accomplishment getting your first nominee through the blocking congress, if you knew anything about politics you would know that

his party held a majority large enough to ensure her appointment the day it was announced.

try not to be such a typical koolaid drinker.

 

[beowolfe]

It's not a negative, unless you're in a leadership position. Experience is the key here and Obama doesn't have any.

Experience isn't the key. If that was the case, Dubya would have had a successful presidency. He was a two term governor of Texas afterall. So, how do you explain that?

Experience is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! Obama doesn't have any. And experience as a politician doesn't mean much when you're trying to grow the economy. Dubya was a failed businessman and mediocre politician. For the purposes of your post, let's designate Obama as Bush-III.

You keep moving the target. First you said experience was required. Now you're claiming that positive experience is required. You do realize that requiring the experience to be positive your girl is out of the running. As for Obama being Bush III - you dispute that with your own words.

 

[del]

Liberals are condescending because many conservatives are stupid as fuck, yet think they are smart. That should never be rewarded in our country. Just read the forums.

"Mom, when I grow up, I want to be uneducated and ignorant"

you're there. now yell up the basement stairs and tell her.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Why is being an intellectual a negative with the conservative right?

It's not a negative, unless you're in a leadership position. Experience is the key here and Obama doesn't have any.

Actually, he has more experience at president than any Republican or Democratic candidate. If you want to vote for experience for president in the next election you'll have no choice but to vote for Obama, or the next most experienced person, Hillary Clinton. (followed by Laura Bush, but I know you conservatives aren't fans of women leaders.)

By your halfwit logic if a nation has a single general and he died on the eve of a major war, then whoever replaced him would automatically be the best general for the remainder of the war. Even if the general lost every battle despite having all sorts of advantages. Because no other officer has as much experience as general.
Stupid.
But not unexpected in an Obama fanatic.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I have no idea what this thread is about, but Obama absolutely sucks as a President and has made things worse for our nation. Now we'll have to recover from Bush and Obama, oh joy.

 

[xsited1]

Experience isn't the key. If that was the case, Dubya would have had a successful presidency. He was a two term governor of Texas afterall. So, how do you explain that?

Experience is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! Obama doesn't have any. And experience as a politician doesn't mean much when you're trying to grow the economy. Dubya was a failed businessman and mediocre politician. For the purposes of your post, let's designate Obama as Bush-III.

You keep moving the target. First you said experience was required. Now you're claiming that positive experience is required. You do realize that requiring the experience to be positive your girl is out of the running. As for Obama being Bush III - you dispute that with your own words.

I would give your post a troll rating, but I fear you're being serious.

So you're distinguishing between positive and (what should I say... negative?) experience? Well, there is a slight element of truth to what you say. In the real world, if you take two people that have worked at the same job for 20 years, you could say that both have 20 years of experience. However, we all know that most people just coast while a few continue to learn and actually have 'better' experience. Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to the Obama Administration since very few have real-world experience, especially since they have no idea how jobs are created in America. Here's a great chart for you:

(They also excel at tax evasion, but I digress.)

And who is "your girl?" Is that some attempt at partisan hackery on your part? Yes. Yes, it is.

I see little difference between Obama and Bush, but you can think they're different if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Oldandtired]

Experience is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! Obama doesn't have any. And experience as a politician doesn't mean much when you're trying to grow the economy. Dubya was a failed businessman and mediocre politician. For the purposes of your post, let's designate Obama as Bush-III.

You keep moving the target. First you said experience was required. Now you're claiming that positive experience is required. You do realize that requiring the experience to be positive your girl is out of the running. As for Obama being Bush III - you dispute that with your own words.

I would give your post a troll rating, but I fear you're being serious.

So you're distinguishing between positive and (what should I say... negative?) experience? Well, there is a slight element of truth to what you say. In the real world, if you take two people that have worked at the same job for 20 years, you could say that both have 20 years of experience. However, we all know that most people just coast while a few continue to learn and actually have 'better' experience. Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to the Obama Administration since very few have real-world experience, especially since they have no idea how jobs are created in America. Here's a great chart for you:

(They also excel at tax evasion, but I digress.)

And who is "your girl?" Is that some attempt at partisan hackery on your part? Yes. Yes, it is.

I see little difference between Obama and Bush, but you can think they're different if it helps you sleep at night.

if that chart is accurate....it is disturbing.

So the ones advising Obama to make up for the lack of experience he has, have little experience as well.

So we have a group of poeple advising on things they know little about....except what the "book" tells them.

Great. Just great.

Elections surely do have consequences.

 

[chanel]

The president and the Dems have.stated or implied that the public is too stupid to understand the health care bill - a bill that most of them had never read. It doesn't get more ignorant -and arrogant -than that.

Question; Has the President used the term "tea bagger" yet?

 

[Oldandtired]

The president and the Dems have.stated or implied that the public is too stupid to understand the health care bill - a bill that most of them had never read. It doesn't get more ignorant -and arrogant -than that.

Question; Has the President used the term "tea bagger" yet?

Not trhat I have heard...

But he DID say on national TV that they were "waving their little tea bags" and smiled as he got a laughter from the audience.

Do we recall any other president openly ridiculing Americans as they exercised their right to free speech?

I know Bush never did with Sheehan...although the far right did.

Maybe Nixon did....I dont know.

 

[Darkwind]

You keep moving the target. First you said experience was required. Now you're claiming that positive experience is required. You do realize that requiring the experience to be positive your girl is out of the running. As for Obama being Bush III - you dispute that with your own words.

I would give your post a troll rating, but I fear you're being serious.

So you're distinguishing between positive and (what should I say... negative?) experience? Well, there is a slight element of truth to what you say. In the real world, if you take two people that have worked at the same job for 20 years, you could say that both have 20 years of experience. However, we all know that most people just coast while a few continue to learn and actually have 'better' experience. Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to the Obama Administration since very few have real-world experience, especially since they have no idea how jobs are created in America. Here's a great chart for you:

(They also excel at tax evasion, but I digress.)

And who is "your girl?" Is that some attempt at partisan hackery on your part? Yes. Yes, it is.

I see little difference between Obama and Bush, but you can think they're different if it helps you sleep at night.

if that chart is accurate....it is disturbing.

So the ones advising Obama to make up for the lack of experience he has, have little experience as well.

So we have a group of poeple advising on things they know little about....except what the "book" tells them.

Great. Just great.

Elections surely do have consequences.

It is even worse then that. You have a group of people advising the President of the United States based upon academic world experience. I'm sure you can guess what that means.

 

[Darkwind]

The president and the Dems have.stated or implied that the public is too stupid to understand the health care bill - a bill that most of them had never read. It doesn't get more ignorant -and arrogant -than that.

Question; Has the President used the term "tea bagger" yet?

Not in public.