What's Wrong With Our Best And Brightest?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bitterlyclingin, Aug 13, 2012.

  1. bitterlyclingin
    Offline

    bitterlyclingin Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,076
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +449
    [Maybe it's because they wear the Magic 'D' after their name, thinking that makes them direct heirs in the lineage of FDR and JFK and above reproach, like brother Teddy displaying his stamina and prodigious appetite during his all night rental of the Mexican bordello]

    "From Eliot Spitzer to Elizabeth Warren to Fareed Zakaria — what is wrong with our elites? Do they assume that because they are on record for the proverbial people, or because they have been branded with an Ivy League degree, or because they are habitués of the centers of power between New York and Washington, or because they write for the old (but now money-losing) blue-chip brands (Time magazine, the New York Times, etc.), or because we see them on public and cable TV, or because they rule us from the highest echelons of government that they are exempt from the sorts of common ethical constraints that the rest of us must adhere to — at least if a society as sophisticated as ours is to work?

    I understand that there is a special genre of conservative Christian hypocrites — a Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, or Ted Haggard — who preach fire and brimstone about the very sins they indulge in. The Republican primary was in some ways a circus as the media had a field day pointing out the ethical inconsistencies of the candidates. But here I am talking about secular elites across the cultural spectrum who simply do not live by their own rules, and yet are often granted exemption for their transgressions because of their own liberal piety — and a more calibrated assumption that the world of blue America (i.e., the media, the government, the arts, the foundations, the legal profession, and Hollywood) will not hold them to account.

    Take affirmative action. Over-the-top and crude Ward Churchill at least bought the buckskin and beads to play out his con as an American Indian activist with various other associated academic frauds. But Elizabeth Warren’s “Cherokee”-constructed pedigree was far more subtle — and the sort of lie that Harvard could handle. She more wisely kept to the fast lane of tasteful liberal one-percenters, as she parlayed a false claim of Indian ancestry into a Harvard professorship. So whereas Churchill is now a much-lampooned figure, Warren may be headed to the U.S. Senate. To say that Elizabeth Warren is and was untruthful, and yet was a law professor who was supposed to inculcate respect for our jurisprudence, is to incur the charge of being a right-wing bigot. But reflect: how can someone who faked an entire identity — and one aimed at providing an edge in hiring to the disadvantage of others — not be completely ostracized? Again, Warren was successful precisely because she wore no beads or headband and did not affect a tribal name — the sort of hocus-pocus that makes faculty lounge liberals uncomfortable. It was precisely because she looked exactly like a blond, pink Harvard progressive that Warren’s constructed minority fraud was so effective."

    Works and Days » Our Not So Best and Not So Brightest
     
  2. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    what a pack of nonsense from some smuck at the national review
     
  3. beretta304
    Offline

    beretta304 BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    8,664
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    A Saner Place
    Ratings:
    +73
    What's Wrong With Our Best And Brightest?


    Their voices were silenced by the MSM.
     
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    The woman had been told all her life she was part indian.

    I was told that too.

    To this day I have no idea if its true.

    She apperantly believed her family
     
  5. Full-Auto
    Offline

    Full-Auto Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    13,555
    Thanks Received:
    1,614
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +1,615
    Democrats were torn a new one.............

    AH HA!!!!
     
  6. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
  7. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,830
    Scary thing is, Mitt and Ryan ARE the best and brightest the R has to offer.





    Yep.





    .
     
  8. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,338
    Elizabeth Warren was not told anything of the sort. She got the idea from a picture and decided that if she used her high cheekbones as a genetic marker should would be invited to parties and luncheons. She is not unlike the plain jane, the unpopular girl at school inventing an ancestor that was European Royalty and calling herself Princess.

    Elizabeth Warren in her own words.

    I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off.

    Read more Elizabeth Warren's Native American Question : The New Yorker

    Not even that could help this plain jane get invited to luncheons with the pretty people.
     

Share This Page