Who are the GOP Intellectuals, if any?

[Cecilie1200]

Some great ones in there Liberty. I'd debate on Andrew Jackson because he was the creator of the Democrat party as based on populism and primitive identity politics. Wellllll.... maybe... but I'm torn.

You don't have to agree with his opinions and conclusions to recognize that he was truly intellectual and intelligent.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For most people, the fact that they say something would constitute evidence that they believe it. But for some reason, people persist in claiming that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, alone of all pundits, commentators, and others on the political scene, are utterly faking everything they espouse for the sole purpose of getting rich. I have yet to hear any commentator on the left accused of "just saying that to make money".

I'm typically skeptical, but that comes from my dealings with people in regards to religion. A whole lot of people claim to be Christian, promote Christian beliefs publically, but privately are anything but. I'm a big believer in that whole "Faith without works...." dogma from the Bible. If you really believe, put some skin in the game.

And this is most certainly not limited to the Right by any stretch of the imagination. I'd put forward that the Right makes it easier to get rich espousing the correct dogma thanks to imprints that specialize in publishing strictly Conservative slanted books, book clubs that buy up said books like hotcakes, and the advent of Right Wing Radio. The fact you can see attack pieces on a leftwing celebrity in Walmart and Target within about 15 minutes of them getting any level of fame seems pretty clear evidence of how well that machine works. But there are most certainly folks on the Left who are completely in it for the money. Think about Global Warming for a few seconds, and I'd bet you'd agree.

So long story short: Lots of people publically espouse beliefs they don't care to shakes about for money. It's just that you'll probably make more money, and get more famous, if you're on the Right. The Left just isn't that organized.

I would never presume to say whether anyone is or is not a Christian. Only God can look into their hearts. So while there are certainly people who espouse Christian beliefs who perhaps don't manage to live up to those beliefs in practice, I would not say they aren't Christians or that they don't really believe what they say they do. i would be more likely to say that they are bad Christians, and/or weak in spirit.

I'm talking less about celebrities (ie. Susan Sarandon, Leonardo diCaprio, Alicia Silverstone) than I am about political pundits and figures. I suspect most celebrities aren't bright enough to have thought deeply and clearly on any subject they espouse. So it would be less that they believe in something than that they'll believe anything, if you see what I mean.

Pundits and political commentators, on the other hand, are expected to have a deeper level of understanding on the issues than the average celebrity spokesperson. And while some of them may indulge in hyperbole to get attention (Al Sharpton, anyone?), I don't have any problem believing that they all still really do espouse the positions and viewpoints that they express.

And I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone believes you're going to make more money and be more famous by pretending to be conservative than liberal. Clearly, you have no idea what espousing right-wing ideas actually does to one's career in politics, show business, etc. The few famous people who have managed to emerge, largely thanks to the rise of alternative media, are exceptions, not the rule. Meanwhile, attacking conservatives - or merely just fawning over liberals - has always been a good way to get book deals, talk shows, think tank appointments, and job offers.

I'll continue this when I get back.

 

[MaggieMae]

I can think of a few real intellectuals, not pseudo-intellectuals like the left swamp the media with. (I am not claiming these are "GOP" intellectuals, just showing what real intellectuals are.)

And here is the modern left's view of an intellectual:

Gee...touch choice there.

Well that's hardly fair. Where are the "modern" right's view of an intellectual?

Oh wait, here's one:

 

[MaggieMae]

For most people, the fact that they say something would constitute evidence that they believe it. But for some reason, people persist in claiming that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, alone of all pundits, commentators, and others on the political scene, are utterly faking everything they espouse for the sole purpose of getting rich. I have yet to hear any commentator on the left accused of "just saying that to make money".

I'm typically skeptical, but that comes from my dealings with people in regards to religion. A whole lot of people claim to be Christian, promote Christian beliefs publically, but privately are anything but. I'm a big believer in that whole "Faith without works...." dogma from the Bible. If you really believe, put some skin in the game.

And this is most certainly not limited to the Right by any stretch of the imagination. I'd put forward that the Right makes it easier to get rich espousing the correct dogma thanks to imprints that specialize in publishing strictly Conservative slanted books, book clubs that buy up said books like hotcakes, and the advent of Right Wing Radio. The fact you can see attack pieces on a leftwing celebrity in Walmart and Target within about 15 minutes of them getting any level of fame seems pretty clear evidence of how well that machine works. But there are most certainly folks on the Left who are completely in it for the money. Think about Global Warming for a few seconds, and I'd bet you'd agree.

So long story short: Lots of people publically espouse beliefs they don't care to shakes about for money. It's just that you'll probably make more money, and get more famous, if you're on the Right. The Left just isn't that organized.

I would actually say they're too organized. The left will always try to explain its reasons in advance of the attack. The right attacks first, waits for the shock value, then lets the backup teams go in for the kill.

 

[Liberty]

Why do we need modern ones when the ones of the past were enough?

 

[MaggieMae]

And I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone believes you're going to make more money and be more famous by pretending to be conservative than liberal. Clearly, you have no idea what espousing right-wing ideas actually does to one's career in politics, show business, etc. The few famous people who have managed to emerge, largely thanks to the rise of alternative media, are exceptions, not the rule. Meanwhile, attacking conservatives - or merely just fawning over liberals - has always been a good way to get book deals, talk shows, think tank appointments, and job offers.

Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that more people relate to liberal ideologies? And if so, why? And I'm not referring to people who only live for government handouts, but the people you specifically described, whom one presumes are at least smart although not necessarily "intellectuals." People on the right continually suggest that academia is filled with liberal-minded professors, there's that "liberal" media they all whine about. What do they know that conservatives don't? I think the answer is that liberal ideology is more grounded in reality, whereas conservative ideology is based on a series of what ifs and what should be based on many unrealistic goals.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why do we need modern ones when the ones of the past were enough?

Because they didn't have to deal with 308 million people with diverse interests and needs, that's why.

 

[Liberty]

Why do we need modern ones when the ones of the past were enough?

Because they didn't have to deal with 308 million people with diverse interests and needs, that's why.

Good principles don't change.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why do we need modern ones when the ones of the past were enough?

Because they didn't have to deal with 308 million people with diverse interests and needs, that's why.

Good principles don't change.

and like vector graphics, they scale smoothly.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why do we need modern ones when the ones of the past were enough?

Because they didn't have to deal with 308 million people with diverse interests and needs, that's why.

Good principles don't change.

Sure they do. That's why the first ten amendments to the Constitution had to do with civil rights.

 

[Liberty]

Because they didn't have to deal with 308 million people with diverse interests and needs, that's why.

Good principles don't change.

Sure they do. That's why the first ten amendments to the Constitution had to do with civil rights.

 

[RachelMadcow]

So wait?

If you create enormous debt, more than any other President ever, and illegally bomb Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan while increasing poverty at home, you are brilliant?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Krauthammer and the Baseball writer, that old guy that hacks on the ABC sunday show most every week.

Can't think of his name.

Both are hacks though.

The left thinks being conservative makes you dumb so it's all a matter of opinion.

Conservatives are mostly wrong on most issues.

Isn't being wrong more than you are right a fair indicator of intelligence?

 

[mudwhistle]

Krauthammer and the Baseball writer, that old guy that hacks on the ABC sunday show most every week.

Can't think of his name.

Both are hacks though.

The left thinks being conservative makes you dumb so it's all a matter of opinion.

Conservatives are mostly wrong on most issues.

Isn't being wrong more than you are right a fair indicator of intelligence?

Not really.

If that was the case then the Obama's Administration would be the dumbest in our history.

Lately he's been admitting how wrong he's been, saying that he would need more time to fix all the things that are worse then he thought. But then of course all of these problems he claims aren't of his own making. He's wrong on that count as well.

He said earlier this year that higher gas prices had their advantages. He's wrong. But you think he's right. You're both wrong. Now he wants to go after the cause of higher gas prices. He says it's speculators. I bet you believe him. The shrinking dollar is what's causing prices to sky-rocket. He's been working hard for quite some time to make sure this happens. He's wrong, wrong, wrong. What a dumb-ass.

The price of a gallon of gas in Dec, 2008 was $1.49. Right now it's almost $5 in D.C. That's progress Obama style.

Glenn Beck said all of this would happen last year. So he must be very intelligent.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Going back to Ronald Reagan, he was a "B" movie actor.

Then you had A lister, Arnold, probably an even better actor than Ron, but an alien, can't be president.

Then you have bathing suit runway walker Sarah Palin.

Then there is "nude centerfold magazine model", Scott Brown.

Don't forget "talk show host" and "comic" and "strummer", Mike Huckabee.

Now there is reality TV show star Donald Trump.

When I see GOP, I think of these as the "intellectual heavy hitters". If not them, then who?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws]YouTube - Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States[/ame]

 

[Mad Scientist]

Because they didn't have to deal with 308 million people with diverse interests and needs, that's why.

Good principles don't change.

Sure they do. That's why the first ten amendments to the Constitution had to do with civil rights.

Oh really? Please elaborate.