Jump to content

Biden stepping down ?


Guest Patriot

Recommended Posts

Well, fellow American, I will agree that we both care deeply about our country, however we do have philosophically different views on which candidate can better protect our country. While you apparently think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I have reservations about his "most liberal" voting record, his associations with Ayres, Rezco and Wright and his socialistic "nanny-state" visions. I'm also troubled by his goal to cut military funding to finance his many socialist programs.

On your #2 point, the democrats have opposed drilling for many years, they've also opposed building nuclear plants. Clinton was in office 8 years and did nothing about our dependence on foreign oil. The dems have been in charge in Congress the last two years and have done nothing about the energy crisis.

While the Republicans do share the blame here, you give the Dems a pass on this issue.

#3. Yes, Obama's intelligent, so are a lot of other people. A lot of intelligent people I know wouldn't necessarily make a good CIC. Obama is glib and speaks well not missing his talking points that he's memorized.

As forgiving as you are with Obama (144 working days in Congress, no executive experience, associations with nefarious characters, most liberal member of congress), you're equally unforgiving with Palin. You've decided she's not intelligent based upon two "interviews" with Charlie and Katie and her not having a law degree. I wonder if you would concede Reagan was one of our greatest President despite not having a law degree. I'm certain Palin is a quick study and will be up to speed very quickly with all the international issues.

#4. Your personal opinions (McCain has a vicious temper, McCain was contemptuous of Obama, etc.) are just that, personal opinions which I disagree with.

You see steadiness in Obama, I see an inexperienced glib junior Senator that's been labeled "most liberal', who's tax and spend mentality could result in a depression in the U.S. At this time in history, with Putin, Iran, N.Korea and Chavez rattling sabres and world-wide terrorism, the last thing we need is a naive president with no understanding of military affairs. Glibness doesn't cut it here.

Wow, it can actually write like a human being when it wants to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest 2smart4u
4. John McCain isn’t a no-pork Senator. He has supported his pet projects, too. He was at the center of a major scandal that touched a financial crises before.

Paul, I assume you're referring to the Keating 5 scandal. I suggest you look into what Bob Bennett (Democratic council at the time) said about McCain. He basically said there was no evidence, and wanted him removed from the investigation. Since he was the only Republican implicated, the Democrats on the committee were not about to let it be a one party scandal, and decided he needed to be assumed guilty by association.

You're confusing innuendo and rumor with fact. The Loonys don't do well with facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, fellow American, I will agree that we both care deeply about our country, however we do have philosophically different views on which candidate can better protect our country. While you apparently think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I have reservations about his "most liberal" voting record, his associations with Ayres, Rezco and Wright and his socialistic "nanny-state" visions. I'm also troubled by his goal to cut military funding to finance his many socialist programs.

On your #2 point, the democrats have opposed drilling for many years, they've also opposed building nuclear plants. Clinton was in office 8 years and did nothing about our dependence on foreign oil. The dems have been in charge in Congress the last two years and have done nothing about the energy crisis.

While the Republicans do share the blame here, you give the Dems a pass on this issue.

#3. Yes, Obama's intelligent, so are a lot of other people. A lot of intelligent people I know wouldn't necessarily make a good CIC. Obama is glib and speaks well not missing his talking points that he's memorized.

As forgiving as you are with Obama (144 working days in Congress, no executive experience, associations with nefarious characters, most liberal member of congress), you're equally unforgiving with Palin. You've decided she's not intelligent based upon two "interviews" with Charlie and Katie and her not having a law degree. I wonder if you would concede Reagan was one of our greatest President despite not having a law degree. I'm certain Palin is a quick study and will be up to speed very quickly with all the international issues.

#4. Your personal opinions (McCain has a vicious temper, McCain was contemptuous of Obama, etc.) are just that, personal opinions which I disagree with.

You see steadiness in Obama, I see an inexperienced glib junior Senator that's been labeled "most liberal', who's tax and spend mentality could result in a depression in the U.S. At this time in history, with Putin, Iran, N.Korea and Chavez rattling sabres and world-wide terrorism, the last thing we need is a naive president with no understanding of military affairs. Glibness doesn't cut it here.

Fellow American, I congratulate you on a good post. I don’t agree with it, but that’s because, as you say, we have two very different views of the world. If we continue the dialogue in this manner, maybe one of us will persuade the other to change a position or two. That would be an accomplishment, even if it’s only on one point.

I don't think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I do think he shows extraordinary promise and at worst would be a vast improvement over Bush and better than McCain. Of course, I am more likely to vote for him than you are because I agree with his policies. In addition, he will continue to improve, while McCain seems to have seen his best days.

It's a choice between the two. I had expected to see McCain besting Obama here or there as the more experienced and steadier candidate, but exactly the opposite has happened. McCain has been dangerously erratic, starting with the Palin selection and throughout the financial crisis, which is now two weeks old. I never thought I would see him unravel this way, but it is driving his approval ratings rapidly downward. By contrast, Obama has remained steady and calm throughout the campaign and throughout the crisis, which is why independents are being won over to him. I certainly don't think he is the most liberal member of the Senate. Pat Leahy and Bernard Sanders come to mind, along with Ted Kennedy. But even if he was by some standard, I would need to know what legislation that assessment is based on. What matters to me are specifics, not general labels.

I'm intrigued about your statement about cutting military funding. From what I've heard, Obama doesn't want us spending more money in Iraq. If that's what you're referring to, it doesn't apply. If that's not what you're referring to, please point me to something.

You're right that both parties have dropped the ball on energy, but remember that proposing any new spending has been very difficult in the Reagan era. That has to come to an end if we're going to make the investments necessary to work our way out of the hole we've dug ourselves into. The only real long-term solution is non-fossil fuels in my opinion. Their development should be a top national priority, in fact should have been so for thirty-five years. Obama's position is closer to that than McCain's because Obama understands that government will have to play a role in the transition. McCain is too ideological to get that.

I don't know what more I can tell you about McCain's temper, which is legendary with his colleagues, or about Palin's frightening lack of depth, which has many leading conservatives calling her unqualified or even asking her to step down off the ticket. All I can ask you to do is to try to see why I might be saying that.

Finally, I appreciate your points about the role of government, the nanny state as you put it. Of course, deregulation has created a nanny state for the corporations and the rich, so the alternative you've sided with is worse. Just the same, I would like to see our politics become less divisive and more reasonable. I'm not bothered by Obama's associations first because most of them were many years ago and second because I don't see him as following in the mold of those people. If you do, then by all means follow your judgment. But I think if you could step back and re-evaluate him with fresh eyes, you would see things differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin also believes that dinosaurs lived on Earth at the same time as humans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/p...a_n_130012.html

This isn't just a lack of intellectual curiosity. It's profound ignorance.

What makes you think Munger told the truth?

Many things are ascribed to Palin are untrue.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/newsquotes.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The founders were well-read and most of them were well-educated. They had a deep respect for the classical education of their time. They were suspicious of the ability of the masses to govern, and very careful about how much power they gave to the common man (no women at the time). They would be horrified at the long streak of anti-intellectualism in our history, such as is reflected in your post.

Lincoln was from the backwoods, but his mind was not contained there. His love of books is legendary, even today nearly 150 years after his death. He proved his knowledge of national affairs in a series of debates against one of the great orators of his time.

The attitude you just expressed saddled us with a President these last eight years who never had the intelligence or the intellectual curiosity to be President. People took attitudes like yours and elected a nincompoop because they thought he'd be more fun to have a beer with. Where's the common sense in that.

Do you have any idea what a President does day after day? Any idea the number of things she or he must understand every day just to make sensible decisions, let alone good ones? I'm not qualified to do it, and neither are you.

Some people who read books and study the world, also have common sense; some don't. Some people who don't read books and study the world, also have common sense; some don't. But anyone who thinks that a person can be President or Vice President of the United States today without a first-class mind and a first-class education has no common sense at all.

The founders vision was to have ordinary people (yes, at that time men only) from all walks of life and with all different experience and education levels to represent the rest of the people. In other words, do your duty, then return to your private life. By your standards no one is qualified to be President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
You know nothing of her "intellectual curiosity". "She sounds like a cheerleader"? What does Biden sound like when he's spewing gaffes left and right? She graduated from the U. of Idaho. Not good enough? Ronald Reagan, one of our greatest presidents graduated from Eureka College in Illinois, a school of 250 students.

You should be more concerned with Obama's friendship with William Ayres, a terrorist who blew up government buildings and his relationships with Rezco, a convicted felon and Rev. Wright, a hate-mongering racist. If a person is to be judged by his friends and relationships, Obama fails the smell test.

You're right. Can you imagine the outrage from Paul if Sarah Palin's friends were named Wright, Rezco and Ayres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for starters, Lincoln was a lawyer. In fact, he was a trial lawyer (as I am) who grew up in the backwoods, just like I did.

You bet I’m an elitist. I want a doctor attending to my medical care, a financial expert taking care of my finances, a trained pilot flying my airplane, qualified generals commanding our military units, trained and experienced financial experts running our financial institutions and the most qualified people we can find running the government.

We made a huge mistake electing George W. Bush president because he had more of the common touch than John Kerry. Bush lacked the intelligence, the intellectual curiosity and the perspective on the world that is essential in a President. And now we are paying the price.

No, the waitress in the small-town restaurant is not qualified to be VP or President, or for that matter to be a paralegal in my law office without some training. I’m tired of the idea that we can put incompetent people in important positions. People who think of themselves as “ordinary” (which is mainly what's really going on) should be less defensive about being looked down on. They might realize that a lot of it isn't really happening. When citizens vote for or against candidates to settle a personal issue they may have, they’re voting for the wrong reasons, and cutting off their nose to spite their face. It’s going to destroy our country if we don’t stop it.

“Well” you say, “look at the mess the supposedly smart people created.” This wasn’t done because the people in charge were smart. It was done because people with access to power were narrowly self-interested, and because the country elected public officials who espoused a political ideology that we should have grown out of after the stock market crash of 1929. It’s a political problem, not a problem of expertise. The financial people knew what was happening, and so did many members of Congress. Several warnings were issued, but for political reasons they were ignored. The American people let it happen because they stopped paying attention to how things work and voted for candidates for frivolous reasons. Lipstick on pigs makes front page news because the masses of people encourage that crap. If we want our politics to make more sense, then we're going to have to exercise some discipline and behave like responsible adults politically and socially. And that applies to people with and without a lot of education.

Turning Congress over to the cafeteria staff isn’t going to wrestle the country out of the grasp of lawyers. The only way citizens are going to make the laws work for them is to pay attention to what’s happening and demand accountability from elected officials. What’s happening is no secret. Lawyers work for clients. Most clients who can afford highly paid lawyers have a lot of money. If you want things to change, then pay attention to politics and vote for people who are committed to those kinds of changes. You’re not going to get it by turning control over to people who don’t know what they’re doing.

Now, if you want to call names, look at what you wrote. I associate with people from all walks of life every day. So either you're too ignorant or stupid to understand that your argument makes no sense, or you're intellectually dishonest. I don't like calling names, but I'm tired of apologizing for having an education. I'm not on a pedestal. I do all the same things you do, every day. But yes, I have an education and a commitment to backing up what I say. So if you want to couple ignorant comments with personal attacks, I'll call it what it is: ignorant and stupid. And if you like, I'll say it to your face. But what you probably don't realize is: It's not about me. It's about what's happening to our country because people like you give themselves license to do and say "dumb" things.

Look, I understand that educated people can be arrogant. So can uneducated people. I’m arrogant sometimes and so are you. It’s pretty obvious from what you just wrote, don’t you think? That was arrogant as hell. But I’ll tell you what, if you want a lawyer to represent you in a case, you’ll be better off with me than with your garbage collector. Sorry if that offends you, but that’s how it is.

Footnote: You have quite an attitude about lawyers, but if you’re ever really hurt and unable to pay your bills or earn a living because someone else was careless, you’re going to be in my office, or one of my colleague’s offices asking us to help you. I see people like you coming in every day, and the first thing they say is “I’m not the kind of person who wants to sue someone” or “it’s not about the money.” That’s usually the person who wants the absolute last dollar at the end of the case. Talk is cheap until you’re hurting.

Leave it to a lawyer to answer a post a few paragraphs long with the above.

Of course we need qualified individuals doing the jobs that you mentioned. Those jobs require specialized skill sets. Being President or VP doesn't require specific and specialized skills or education. That's why they have dozens and dozens of cabinet members, advisors , and administrators.

Lincoln was a lawyer, but he was mainly self-educated. His strengths were his common sense, logic, and communication skills. We've had Presidents with many levels of experience, education, and background. As in most occupations some do better than others.

By your standards Obama is barely more qualified than Palin. The ability to memorize talking points doesn't mean that you have an in depth understanding of foreign policy. Frankly, I'd rather have someone tell me "I'll get back to ya" and then get the necessary information to help me as opposed to giving me the stock answer.

As for your footnote, I guess your the last honest lawyer out there. But let's be realistic, there are reasons that lawyers have the reputation that they do, it's well earned. Face it, if there is money to be made they take the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The founders vision was to have ordinary people (yes, at that time men only) from all walks of life and with all different experience and education levels to represent the rest of the people. In other words, do your duty, then return to your private life. By your standards no one is qualified to be President.

There's a grain of truth in that, but not much more than a grain. The founders wanted ordinary people in House of Representatives, but not in the Senate or the presidency. You won't find much support for your claim that the founders wanted ordinary people to be president. They were very cautious about giving power to ordinary people and mainly distrustful of the capacity of "ordinary people" to govern themselves. For that reason, the Senate wasn't popularly elected until this century, and the president never has been popularly elected. That's why the founders devised the Electoral College. It's also why they established an independent judiciary. They did not want people in those offices who were not qualified for them.

There's a big difference between experience and education, and a big difference between 1787 and 2008. While the founders made it possible for an uneducated person to be elected to office, they also made it unlikely for most offices, and there's nothing in their writing to suggest that they wanted ignorant people equally represented at any level of government. The founders were men of the 18th-century Enlightenment, which means that they respected learning. They would not like the attitude being expressed today that unqualified people should be elected because they're "more like us."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. Can you imagine the outrage from Paul if Sarah Palin's friends were named Wright, Rezco and Ayres.

Nothing like changing the subject when you can't defend your candidate with facts. Palin is unqualified. You don't have to agree, but the growing majority of Americans who agree that she's not qualified don't have to agree with you either.

Rezco and Ayres are hardly Obama's friends. Those "relationships" are distant at most. Wright was his pastor, and people have every right to consider how that might affect Obama's conduct in office. From what I can see, it won't.

Now let's look at McCain. When you weigh Obama's former connections against the lobbyists who are running McCain's campaign right now, McCain is the one who is more significantly influenced by the wrong people. His flip-flops to the far right on numerous issues and his selection of an unqualified running mate he didn't even want are all the proof a reasonable person needs of that.

Which probably is why PatRat didn't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The founders vision was to have ordinary people (yes, at that time men only) from all walks of life and with all different experience and education levels to represent the rest of the people.

False. Here is what Alexander Hamilton wrote about the method of presidential selection in Federalist paper number 68:

“The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.”

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed68.htm

Of the vice president, Hamilton wrote this, also from Federalist Paper number 68:

“The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other.”

By your standards no one is qualified to be President.

False. What I said was "anyone who thinks that a person can be President or Vice President of the United States today without a first-class mind and a first-class education has no common sense at all." Plenty of people have first-class minds and first-class educations. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are two such people. You can make a case for McCain, too, but it's not as strong. You can't make a credible case for Palin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave it to a lawyer to answer a post a few paragraphs long with the above.

Of course we need qualified individuals doing the jobs that you mentioned. Those jobs require specialized skill sets. Being President or VP doesn't require specific and specialized skills or education. That's why they have dozens and dozens of cabinet members, advisors , and administrators.

Lincoln was a lawyer, but he was mainly self-educated. His strengths were his common sense, logic, and communication skills. We've had Presidents with many levels of experience, education, and background. As in most occupations some do better than others.

By your standards Obama is barely more qualified than Palin. The ability to memorize talking points doesn't mean that you have an in depth understanding of foreign policy. Frankly, I'd rather have someone tell me "I'll get back to ya" and then get the necessary information to help me as opposed to giving me the stock answer.

As for your footnote, I guess your the last honest lawyer out there. But let's be realistic, there are reasons that lawyers have the reputation that they do, it's well earned. Face it, if there is money to be made they take the case.

Leave it to a bigoted nincompoop to respond like that.

You can whine about Obama all you want, but he understands policy very well. You just don't like that he does.

But maybe you're smarter than I am. Please explain the bolded comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave it to a lawyer to answer a post a few paragraphs long with the above.

Of course we need qualified individuals doing the jobs that you mentioned. Those jobs require specialized skill sets. Being President or VP doesn't require specific and specialized skills or education. That's why they have dozens and dozens of cabinet members, advisors , and administrators.

Lincoln was a lawyer, but he was mainly self-educated. His strengths were his common sense, logic, and communication skills. We've had Presidents with many levels of experience, education, and background. As in most occupations some do better than others.

By your standards Obama is barely more qualified than Palin. The ability to memorize talking points doesn't mean that you have an in depth understanding of foreign policy. Frankly, I'd rather have someone tell me "I'll get back to ya" and then get the necessary information to help me as opposed to giving me the stock answer.

As for your footnote, I guess your the last honest lawyer out there. But let's be realistic, there are reasons that lawyers have the reputation that they do, it's well earned. Face it, if there is money to be made they take the case.

You're not very bright, are you, or much of a Christian either if that's what you claim to be. Not very courageous either, since you won't put your name to your slop. So then, since you're anonymous, you won't mind my pointing out the problems with your arguments.

1. A single question can require, or a single statement can invite, an answer a book long.

2. Being president or VP requires a broad base of knowledge in as much depth as possible. All things being equal, the more the better. Palin fails the threshold test because she's completely lost. She can't even handle a simple interview. This is not a close question.

3. Obama doesn't have that problem, and he isn't just spouting talking points. No one can rattle off talking points with the facility we saw in Obama last Friday. Hillary Clinton recognized his talent as soon as she met him. She may now regret having helped him early on, but she saw the talent, and she and Bill aren't easily impressed.

4. The buck stops with the president, who makes the decision. Cabinet members and advisers are very important, but a president must have the capacity to evaluate the advice and make a sound choice, especially when he is getting conflicting advice. She can't do it if she doesn't understand the issues in depth.

5. Lincoln also understood the country (the world wasn't much of a consdieration in his time) and had a strong historical perspective.

6. I know all about the reputation lawyers have and why we have it. Before you go tarring me with that brush, get to know me. There's no excuse for bigotry against lawyers, any more than against anyone else.

If you ever have the integrity to let me know who you are, I'll tell you to your face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. Can you imagine the outrage from Paul if Sarah Palin's friends were named Wright, Rezco and Ayres.

Well in fact, I could easily go off against McCain's leading campaign advisers all being lobbyists. Those associations are more likely to affect McCain than two people Obama hardly even knew or a former pastor he no longer speaks with are to affect him. Maybe I would go off on it if we Democrats didn't already have so much ammunition thanks to McCain and Palin.

Of course, if I was intellectually dishonest, thinking things through wouldn't occur to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. OK. I'm glad you clarified that. Yes, putting your name behind something makes all the difference. :angry:

Bern, think about what you just wrote. It makes no sense. Of course it mattes that Munger put his name to the accusation. A person who has to put his name to an accusation can be held accountable for it. That's why the law requires witnesses to come forward in open court and give their names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. OK. I'm glad you clarified that. Yes, putting your name behind something makes all the difference. :angry:

It's weak, but it beats the heck out of citing refutations of unrelated claims. Munger's claim also happens to be very plausible.

Her involvement with Assemblies of God and other Pentacostal/Evangelical churches is well established. Having attended numerous AoG and other Pentacostal churches as a child (well into my teens), that's something I have some familiarity with. Pentacostal churches are very explicitly creationist, and typically of the Biblical literalist variety. These are the sort of churches where you might find Jack Chick comics (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1038/1038_01.asp?wpc=1038_01.asp&wpp=a) displayed in a rack in the foyer, or handed out to the kids at Sunday school. In that subculture, creationism of the young-earth, dinosaurs walking with men variety is the rule, not the exception.

The AoG's web site says that they believe in a literal interpretation of the 7 days of creation and that they reject such non-biblical embellishments as theistic evolution. This is consistent with what I remember from many years ago. Their web site doesn't mention the age of the earth or man co-existing with dinosaurs, but within the confines of a literal 7 days and no non-biblical embellishment, co-existence with dinosaurs is pretty much unavoidable regardless of how long ago you place the 7 days.

The claim is unproven, but quite plausible. Palin is atypical of her religious affiliation if she doesn't believe that dinosaurs co-existed with humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not very bright, are you, or much of a Christian either if that's what you claim to be. Not very courageous either, since you won't put your name to your slop. So then, since you're anonymous, you won't mind my pointing out the problems with your arguments.

1. A single question can require, or a single statement can invite, an answer a book long.

2. Being president or VP requires a broad base of knowledge in as much depth as possible. All things being equal, the more the better. Palin fails the threshold test because she's completely lost. She can't even handle a simple interview. This is not a close question.

3. Obama doesn't have that problem, and he isn't just spouting talking points. No one can rattle off talking points with the facility we saw in Obama last Friday. Hillary Clinton recognized his talent as soon as she met him. She may now regret having helped him early on, but she saw the talent, and she and Bill aren't easily impressed.

4. The buck stops with the president, who makes the decision. Cabinet members and advisers are very important, but a president must have the capacity to evaluate the advice and make a sound choice, especially when he is getting conflicting advice. She can't do it if she doesn't understand the issues in depth.

5. Lincoln also understood the country (the world wasn't much of a consdieration in his time) and had a strong historical perspective.

6. I know all about the reputation lawyers have and why we have it. Before you go tarring me with that brush, get to know me. There's no excuse for bigotry against lawyers, any more than against anyone else.

If you ever have the integrity to let me know who you are, I'll tell you to your face.

Once again you've degraded into being a bully. What does it matter how bright I am or whether I'm a Christian or not?

Why not just admit that you'll vote the party line no matter who is running.

I guess the truth hurts, even when it comes to lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again you've degraded into being a bully. What does it matter how bright I am or whether I'm a Christian or not?

Why not just admit that you'll vote the party line no matter who is running.

I guess the truth hurts, even when it comes to lawyers.

So you attack someone, by name, anonymously, then you call him a bully.

You ask what it matters whether you're a Christian, then attack him for being a lawyer. And when he points out that you did it, you do it again.

He didn't go far enough. You're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again you've degraded into being a bully. What does it matter how bright I am or whether I'm a Christian or not?

Why not just admit that you'll vote the party line no matter who is running.

I guess the truth hurts, even when it comes to lawyers.

It matters whether you're bright because intelligence equips a person to think logically. It also equips a person to address arguments instead of attacking the people making those arguments. Since you seem to like attacking people so much, I thought I'd give you a dose of your own medicine. Not that you care, because you don't have the courage to say who you are - so you're not harmed.

It doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, but if you live in Kearny, there's a good chance statistically that you are. The point is, whether you're a Christian or not, bashing a person for his occupation is not charitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matters whether you're bright because intelligence equips a person to think logically. It also equips a person to address arguments instead of attacking the people making those arguments. Since you seem to like attacking people so much, I thought I'd give you a dose of your own medicine. Not that you care, because you don't have the courage to say who you are - so you're not harmed.

It doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, but if you live in Kearny, there's a good chance statistically that you are. The point is, whether you're a Christian or not, bashing a person for his occupation is not charitable.

So you can bash a person for their place in life, like a waitress, but when someone calls you an elitist that's an attack. That makes it ok to attack my intelligence and religious beliefs. Which you know nothing about.

In your case the person and the arguments are one and the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you attack someone, by name, anonymously, then you call him a bully.

You ask what it matters whether you're a Christian, then attack him for being a lawyer. And when he points out that you did it, you do it again.

He didn't go far enough. You're an idiot.

Look who's talking about being anonymous.

Just another online bully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you can bash a person for their place in life, like a waitress, but when someone calls you an elitist that's an attack. That makes it ok to attack my intelligence and religious beliefs. Which you know nothing about.

In your case the person and the arguments are one and the same.

And I won't know anything about you unless you tell me who you are, which obviously you're not willing to do. So I do know at least one thing about you. You're a coward. I also know from how you write that you're not all that smart.

I can see how you might take my comment about waitresses in rural restaurants the wrong way. On the other hand, I wouldn't take offense if you said that you wouldn't hire a lawyer to repair your car. It would be quite extraordinary for a person working as a waitress in a town like the one I grew up in, to be qualified to be vice president. If she was, she almost certainly wouldn't be working that job. If you think that's not so, then perhaps you can cite some examples of waitresses working in rural restaurants who soon thereafter were serious candidats for national office. It may not suit your right-leaning view of political correctness, but it's true. You might also watch the film "Fargo" if you don't understand my reference. That is in fact what Palin reminds me of.

This is not an attack on waitresses. It's fair comment on what Palin is trying to pull on the American people. If she wants to play the folksy game, you can't get away with whining about political correctness from the right. There's a difference between picking up on stereotypical behavior, which the person in question is exaggerating in the hope of making a political gain, and bashing someone for his profession, which you seem to do at every opportunity. Get mad at me if you want to.

Some people are fed up with the so-called elites. Well, guess what, some of us who value inteligence and depth and intellectual curiosity in a national leader are fed up with anti-intellectualism, the idea that a Joe six-pack can study for a couple weeks and be ready to be VP or president. This has reached a dangerous point with Palin, and I'm not going to be silent about it just because you don't like it. And I think quite a few people who don't consider themselves "elite" would agree with me. I hope they'll start saying so before the country elects someone like Palin . . . too late for that, we already elected Bush --- twice. Only Palin is worse, if you can imagine that.

There's one undeniable difference between you and me. I'm putting my name to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...