And You Like This Guy So Much

Asherman wrote:

It would be a lot harder to find a good candidate of their own to run on a platform that would appeal to more than celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals who actually make up only a tiny part of the electorate.

Oh yes, that "tiny part of the electorate" that the Democratic Party is liable to attract if they go on like they have ... like the tiny part of the electorate they attracted last time round ... what was it, 48% of American voters? 59,000,000 people? Hah.

(What are conservative posters thinking when they write sentences like that? Are they serious? Are they just blustering? Don't they realise they just look silly posting inaneness like that?)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Asherman wrote:
It would be a lot harder to find a good candidate of their own to run on a platform that would appeal to more than celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals who actually make up only a tiny part of the electorate.

Oh yes, that "tiny part of the electorate" that the Democratic Party is liable to attract if they go on like they have ... like the tiny part of the electorate they attracted last time round ... what was it, 48% of American voters? 59,000,000 people? Hah.

(What are conservative posters thinking when they write sentences like that? Are they serious? Are they just blustering? Don't they realise they just look silly posting inaneness like that?)

It's amazing isn't it? They won one national election out of the last four and all of the sudden they think they are in for life. They are in for a rude awakening.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Asherman wrote:
It would be a lot harder to find a good candidate of their own to run on a platform that would appeal to more than celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals who actually make up only a tiny part of the electorate.

Oh yes, that "tiny part of the electorate" that the Democratic Party is liable to attract if they go on like they have ... like the tiny part of the electorate they attracted last time round ... what was it, 48% of American voters? 59,000,000 people? Hah.

(What are conservative posters thinking when they write sentences like that? Are they serious? Are they just blustering? Don't they realise they just look silly posting inaneness like that?)

I am disappointed Nimh. Usually your perceptions are better than this.

Did you even read what Asherman actually wrote before lashing out?

He said it is easier for the Dems to try to tear down their opponents rather than support a candidate of their own.

If you want your audience limited to posters like Roxxxanne, then keep making posts like this one Nimh.

0 Replies

I thought the Republicans mastered the "tear down" strategy. In fact, in the last election, it was the Democrats' short-lived attempt to take the high road that cost them the election, IMO.

But nimh's right. The fact that the Dems still got 48% of the vote while facing a popular incumbent and in the middle of a war kind of flies in the face of the notion that the Dems only appeal to a small elite minority.

0 Replies

I glimpsed another attack on intellectualism above.

Gawd, wouldn't it be awful if being smart and thoughtful was deemed a good thing for our citizens? We really can't have that, now can we?

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I glimpsed another attack on intellectualism above.

Gawd, wouldn't it be awful if being smart and thoughtful was deemed a good thing for our citizens? We really can't have that, now can we?

pseudo- or pseud-
pref.

1. False; deceptive; sham: pseudoscience.
2. Apparently similar: pseudocoel.

Wasn't sure if you understood that based on your response.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

nimh wrote:
Asherman wrote:
It would be a lot harder to find a good candidate of their own to run on a platform that would appeal to more than celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals who actually make up only a tiny part of the electorate.

Oh yes, that "tiny part of the electorate" that the Democratic Party is liable to attract if they go on like they have ... like the tiny part of the electorate they attracted last time round ... what was it, 48% of American voters? 59,000,000 people? Hah.

(What are conservative posters thinking when they write sentences like that? Are they serious? Are they just blustering? Don't they realise they just look silly posting inaneness like that?)

I am disappointed Nimh. Usually your perceptions are better than this.

Did you even read what Asherman actually wrote before lashing out?

He said it is easier for the Dems to try to tear down their opponents rather than support a candidate of their own.

If you want your audience limited to posters like Roxxxanne, then keep making posts like this one Nimh.

...as opposed to articulate, informed posters like yourself? LOL

0 Replies

Yes, I did, McG. But, the pseudo seems to get attached in the attack on intellectuals by the Right even when it doesn't apply. Just who might that label apply to that is known to be a democratic base?

In the previous election it was lobbed around a lot. But who does it really apply to?

*The intellectual states as good a case for his adversary as can be made out; the pseudo sets up a straw man and beats it to death for the sake of seeming superior.

*The intellectual is deeply and constantly aware of the limitations of human reason; the pseudo makes a deity of reason and tries to force it into realms it cannot penetrate.

*The intellectual seeks light from whatever source, realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and turn up in the most unexpected places from the most improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he does, only from experts and specialists and certified authorities.

*The intellectual advances an hypothesis that he hopes may be true; the pseudo propounds a dogma that he insists is true.

*The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white, right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I am disappointed Nimh. Usually your perceptions are better than this.

Did you even read what Asherman actually wrote before lashing out?

He said it is easier for the Dems to try to tear down their opponents rather than support a candidate of their own.

If you want your audience limited to posters like Roxxxanne, then keep making posts like this one Nimh.

What crock. Here, look at what

Asherman actually wrote:

we [Republicans] have a whole lot of excellent candidates who will strongly appeal to the American electorate. The Democrats may want to tear them down, that seems to be their basic election strategy. It would be a lot harder to find a good candidate of their own to run on a platform that would appeal to more than celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals who actually make up only a tiny part of the electorate.

Asherman's straightforward assertion here: it is particularly hard - eg, a lot harder than tearing down Republicans - for the Democrats to run a platform and candidate that "would appeal to more than celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals who actually make up only a tiny part of the electorate".

Thats bull, of course. It isnt hard for the Democrats to appeal to more than a tiny part of the electorate at all - no matter how they run their campaign. Hell, they had a crap candidate and a fuzzy platform in 2004, and they still got 59 million votes - 48% of the lot.

In fact, when is the last time that the Democratic candidate failed to appeal to "more than a tiny part of the electorate"? When nobody but "celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals" supported the Dem? Eehhhhmmm ... yeah, I cant actually think of any one such time either.

The reality in which the Dems appeal to no more than a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals, no more than a tiny part of the electorate, is a reality that only ever exists in a Republican's wet dream, in his mirages of what he thinks the world should look like. So these kinds of lines are just bluster, and pretty silly bluster at that.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I am disappointed Nimh. Usually your perceptions are better than this.

Did you even read what Asherman actually wrote before lashing out?

He said it is easier for the Dems to try to tear down their opponents rather than support a candidate of their own.

If you want your audience limited to posters like Roxxxanne, then keep making posts like this one Nimh.

What crock. Here, look at what

Asherman actually wrote:
we [Republicans] have a whole lot of excellent candidates who will strongly appeal to the American electorate. The Democrats may want to tear them down, that seems to be their basic election strategy. It would be a lot harder to find a good candidate of their own to run on a platform that would appeal to more than celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals who actually make up only a tiny part of the electorate.

Asherman's straightforward assertion here: it is particularly hard - eg, a lot harder than tearing down Republicans - for the Democrats to run a platform and candidate that "would appeal to more than celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals who actually make up only a tiny part of the electorate".

Thats bull, of course. It isnt hard for the Democrats to appeal to more than a tiny part of the electorate at all - no matter how they run their campaign. Hell, they had a crap candidate and a fuzzy platform in 2004, and they still got 59 million votes - 48% of the lot.

In fact, when is the last time that the Democratic candidate failed to appeal to "more than a tiny part of the electorate"? When nobody but "celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals" supported the Dem? Eehhhhmmm ... yeah, I cant actually think of any one such time either.

The reality in which the Dems appeal to no more than a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals, no more than a tiny part of the electorate, is a reality that only ever exists in a Republican's wet dream, in his mirages of what he thinks the world should look like. So these kinds of lines are just bluster, and pretty silly bluster at that.

If the Republican candidate were not Bush, I doubt the numbers would have been as high as they were. More people voted against Bush then voted for Kerry. Kerry was a lousy candidate that only appealed to a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals and celbrities.

Did Kerry appeal to you?

0 Replies

Asherman's assessment is so off the mark, it hardly warrants serious discussion. The Repiblicans have won elections based on wedge issues. (In other words, fear) Their gays, guns and Gods strategy unfortunately appeals to the unwashed masses. Aapparnently, Aherman considers anyone with reasoning powers abooive that of a flea a "pseudo-intellectual."

The Dems have done respectably in all of the last four elections on the issues. Kerry lost because he was unable to respond to the swift-boat smear and was deemed weak.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

If the Republican candidate were not Bush, I doubt the numbers would have been as high as they were.

Yeah - problem with your argument is that in every single presidential elections, in every single national elections, in living memory the Dems have appealed to far beyond a "tiny part of the electorate" - whether the opponent was Bush, Dole or whomeffinever.

Moreover, the polls on the political parties show a remarkably consistent pattern too. When it comes to rating the Democratic Party, a third of Americans have a positive impression, a third negative and a third neutral. No surprise there; and do you see any "tiny parts of the electorate" showing up, there? And, wait - the Republican Party? Similar numbers - but just a little worse, of course. One-third is positive, and about 40% negative.

So yeah, whatever ... Asherman's blustering rhetorics remains just that.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

It'll be a while before we choose our Republican standard-bearer, but we have a whole lot of excellent candidates who will strongly appeal to the American electorate. The Democrats may want to tear them down, that seems to be their basic election strategy. It would be a lot harder to find a good candidate of their own to run on a platform that would appeal to more than celebrities and pseudo-intellectuals who actually make up only a tiny part of the electorate.

ash, i'm kind of surprised to hear this come from you. you know that politics is a ruff n' tumble game. there's plenty of tearing down from the republican side as well.. especially the party that it's become under the leadership of folks like gingrich, delay and the rove priesthood.

i can understand some dislike for fuzzy academics or whatever, but the rise of constant complaining about "celebrities" and the "hollywood elite" is really quite baffling. is it really any stranger that folks in the arts tend to be more liberal than those in the corporate world tending to be more conservative ?

based on conversations i've been having with friends who identify themselves as either cons or libs, it appears to me that both sides have really had enough of the food fight as they see the country falling into disrepair.

i believe that a candidate who let the partisan rhetoric take the back seat for a change, and returned to the concept of addressing "my fellow americans" would not only have an identifiable difference about him/her, but is also what the u.s. is desperately in need of.

0 Replies

Quite right, DontTread. My partisanisms are no more valid than those from the left ... it just seems more shocking, I think, because I don't generally go in much for that sort of thing. On the other hand, it feels somehow satisfying to sling some of the Bullshit back.

In another place here I castigated the Democrats as seeing the world through the eyes of celebrities and the pseudo-intellectual lenses of snobbish California and New York, while condemning the rest of the country as "the great unwashed", and as bumpkins easily fooled and led astray by a wicked Republican conspiracy. I did not mean to say that the Democratic Party does not appeal to many voters, yet that obviously false notion is what was pounced upon. Neither was it my intent to in any way show lack of respect for those who earnestly pursue intellectual pursuits, I'm not in the habit of self-loathing. Finding myself accused of having lost my mind and living in a fantasy land so far removed from reality, I'm shocked not to find myself in an asylum. Why shouldn't a conservative be allowed the occasional irrational rant so common from the Left? We are supposed to be above that sort of thing, but ah we are all too human.

Those who know me, even the slightest bit, will know that I generally find good things to say about most of the country's presidents, of whichever Party. I haven't much regard for Jefferson. The political philosophy he espoused and which has been a major theme in American political history is to my mind terribly wrong. Men who have become president are almost without exception honorable and with the highest dedication to the nation's well-being. In the absence of really strong evidence to the contrary I think we owe our elected leaders the benefit of the doubt, especially during times of national crisis.

0 Replies

Ash - That sentiment may have meant something back in the day, but it's a new century. I find it quite common in my parents generation to hear of respect for the office of the president and the flag and all the other patriotic stuff. That was taught to you in school and at home. It was taught to me in the beginning of my school career, as well.

But, this is a different time. A mans word used to mean something. A handshake used to be a contract. Not any more. I think that has all changed, and respect from here on out has to be earned, not given with the benefit of the doubt.

0 Replies

Quote:

In the absence of really strong evidence to the contrary I think we owe our elected leaders the benefit of the doubt, especially during times of national crisis.

I agree 100%. Fortunately for opponents of the Administration, there is really strong evidence that they shouldn't have the benefit of the doubt.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I don't know about all politicians, but McCain is nothing more than a political prostitute to gain the backing of all Bush's political backers.

Nothing but a two bit whore, only cheaper!!!!!

Ampm

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Well, an opinion and an arsehole, everyone's got one....

I agree that McCain is very spineless in his embracing Dubya, especially after what Dubya has done to him. I want to like McCain; I thought for a long while he was my best hope of trying to support someone from 'across the aisle', but I've seen him do the political tiptoe (an admittedly very popular dance) too often to take him as seriously as I'd like to.

Right now, my list is very short of politicians I think have the courage of some- any- conviction.

After what the Bush team did to him in 2000, and now to be huggin', kissin', and supporting Bush ... that boy couldn't get my vote now, period!!

Anon

0 Replies

If there should be a trend away from honorable behavior, it is all the more important that we as individuals cleave more tightly to it. Duty, honor, country are not to me empty words, but guiding concepts. We do not serve the nation, nor the values of our forefathers, by abandoning them because "the times have changed". People have always found reasons for their thoughts, words and actions that belie the values we were taught as children to aspire to. It is easy to let our Ego overcome our social conscience, or to join a lynch mob rather than to stand in defense of scoundrel you personally despise. "Everyone is doing it" is no excuse to copy from another's testsheet, nor to claim exceptions that you know you are not entitled to. Personal initiative may be even more important to foster during times when the cry for more socialism is abroad in our land.

If things aren't right, we have a duty to try and make them right. I contend that the best means of accomplishing change is to change ourselves first. Trying to change others by any means other than friendly persuasion, can so easily go astray even when pursued with the best of intentions. A large, complex nation such as we are can only remain strong by standing firmly for our Constitution and the republican governmental structure that has served us, and the world, so well in the past. If we need change, let it be gradual and well-considered. The People may, and do, often make terrible mistakes, but if we begin to discount the People we are in mortal risk. No man or political party is greater or smarter than the will of the People as expressed through their elected representatives. To think, to behave otherwise is the first large step toward tyranny.

Some may regard my writing as "bluster". I don't think so, my views are sincerely held and, though regarded as quaint and obsolete by some, reflect with some accuracy my point of view.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

revel-- You're better than that. You know Bush didn't say they "reserve to the right to torture if they they think is it necessary."

Don't buy the Dem hype.

The hell he didn't! What do you think the effect of the signing statement was?? Do you even KNOW about the signing statement??

Anon

0 Replies

And You Like This Guy So Much

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know