Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Mike to Chuck: "No sh*t, Sherlock."
Remember the Chris Rock sketch about n-----s vs. black people? And how nothing makes n------s happier than not knowing something? I think the same could be applied to conservatives.
It's what you know that ain't so that worries me, Doyle.
Hey, speaking of Chuck Schumer, this just hit the wire:U.S. Congressional panel defies Bush, authorizes subpoenas of aides in probe of ousted prosecutors - Reuters Whaddya think, Ann. Will Bush defy Congress? You have some training in this area, if I'm not mistaken.
Not all liberals are, but much of their elite is. And Schumer is up there - maybe not the worst, but close. Much of their politics revolves around socialism. And socialism by its very nature presupposes that many need help in making life's choices, and others are endowed by their creators to do so, usually either by being born extremely brilliant (which Schumer actually is, but most liberals aren't, but think they are) or by making a lot of money fairly quickly.
Indeed, just watch how this thread is argued by the left. Doyle starts by "And how nothing makes n------s happier than not knowing something? I think the same could be applied to conservatives". It sure seems to make the author's point.
My point wasn't that conservatives don't know things. It's that they're proud of not knowing things. It's the kind of anti-intellectualism necessary to cast a presidential vote for George W. Bush.
Doyle: A thread by Orin Kerr on Volokh.com is discussing the issue that apparently interests you: http://volokh.com/posts/1174428726.shtml
Speaking of the elitist and privileged what did you think of Pretzeldent Petulant PissyPants' presentation yesterday? What did you think of his content? No transcript, no oath, behind closed doors?What did you think of his style? Could he have seemed more like a bratty kid upset having been caught stealing?
Doyle,Interesting stereotype you have there. But that is the problem there, it is a stereotype. There are plenty of bright conservatives out there with questing minds. The fact that they don't agree with your view of reality doesn't mean that they aren't searching for truth, but rather, they just don't agree with yours. But you did make my point about elitism with your stereotype - by assuming that anyone who didn't agree with your point of view was not just ignorant, but willfully so.
Actually, Doyle, I find the fact that there are so many things I don't know to be pretty humbling.
Bruce - There are smart conservative/Republicans, but they're not the face of the party, which is marketed more with folksiness and "values" than substantive ideas.Like this whole "Ivy League elitist" attack of theirs, for example. It doesn't prove they're stupid, it just shows a disapproval of intellect.
And how nothing makes n------s happier than not knowing something? I think the same could be applied to conservatives.Speaking of the elitist and privileged what did you think of Pretzeldent Petulant PissyPants' presentation yesterday?Two sure indications that the likelihood of any conversation that follows being either intelligent or interesting, much less both, has a small, virtually immeasurable, likelihood of happening.
There are plenty of bright conservatives out there with questing mindsNot at this blog they're ain't. All we ever hear is global warming is complete bunk, and there is no need to investigate any of the scandals that Bush is involved in.In today's global warming denial threads, we see all of these cons admitting what they don't know, right?
"Like this whole "Ivy League elitist" attack of theirs..."I thought it was Schumer who was quoted.
Note to IR: THat's right, and a post titled, "You liberals are such elitists!" was going to have thoughtful, insightful, intelligent, interesting conversation.
RC said: "In today's global warming denial threads, we see all of these cons admitting what they don't know, right?"Actually, it's the liberals who claim certainty about the science.
Sure, Schumer was quoted, but it was promoted by noted right wing hack Ann Althouse, and it's obviously a hobbyhorse of the right, not the left (even if guys like Schumer want to push off it).
Actually, it's the liberals who claim certainty about the science.Probably owing to the overwhelming consensus of scientists.
Sure, Schumer was quoted, but the facts don't matter.Fixed your post, Doyle. ;-)
Thanks, Mike. I did misread it.
I think McPissyPants would be funnier.Anyway, I'll write about the US Attorneys thing when I have something to say. If I gave my preliminary thoughts on the subject, those who are pushing me to talk wouldn't like it. So be careful what you wish for. I'm very busy right now and not inclined to shoot my mouth off... about that anyway.If you want to know if I'm a right wing hack, ask Annette Ziegler.
Hey Doyle and Reality Check, how about a few kind words about your non-elitist good friend and fellow progressive intellectual, Bobby Mugabe?? He sure could use some moral support now in his fight against those conservative block heads.
Pretzeldent Petulant McPissyPants is in fact better.Thank you!
So be careful what you wish for. Oooh. Scary. What are you going to do, Ann? Come down on the side of the president? What a shocker that would be. Let me guess: The USAs serve at the pleasure… positions are inherently political.. show trials…. klieg lights… bloodlust for Karl Rove? If you have some fresh argument in defense of the administration, you should probably deploy it sooner rather than later, because it looks like they’re going to get smoked. Do you have any more op-ed space in the NYT you could use? Well in the meantime you think real hard about what’s transpired and how the Democrats are really the bad guys here and you get back to us.
RC(I said: There are plenty of bright conservatives out there with questing minds).Not at this blog they're ain't. All we ever hear is global warming is complete bunk, and there is no need to investigate any of the scandals that Bush is involved in.In today's global warming denial threads, we see all of these cons admitting what they don't know, right?No, what you hear here about Global Warming is that it is unproven and open to debate. Your point is apparently that anyone who disagrees with you that it is a proven fact is ignorant and proud of it. Of course, I am still waiting to hear why you can't grow grapes in what was once called Vinland. Or, why the ice caps are receeding on Mars. So, as usual, instead of arguing the facts, you argue through ad hominum attacks.
DoyleI know that type of name calling works in some blogs, but outside your normal cheering section of RC, et al., the sarcastic slamming of our hostess makes you no converts here. If anything, I suspect that it detracts from whatever good points you might make.
At least the trolls are dovetailing with the thread - the science is SO settled that their only recourse is to browbeat us into accepting it.
Here's some of your conservatives arguing not via ad hominem but saying that Global Warming is unproven and open to debate:Al Gore will try his best to scare children about polar bears, perhaps there is one in danger in Berlin. Marxist environmentalist Al Gore....once he lost, he could go out and do what he really wanted to do - make some money and preach environmental wackoism. And so, the real Al Gore probably has probably come out....Gore's now an evangelist? Just put on the frock, light some incense and be done with it. But stop spewing your overheated religious emissions into scientific discourse....I am sure Scalia ran home to buy carbon offsets (after his 1400 interviews)....Global warming is the secular equivalent of the Rapture. The world will soon come to an end; we must all repent, and perhaps the purest among us will be saved....The global warming religionists have a couple problems ...Nope, no ad hominem in that (which includes one of your posts too.) Lots of conservatives simply stating that Global Warming is subject to debate but acknowledging that the current scientific consensus is that it is true, man made, and will have a big impact on us.
Dayum--for once I actually agree with a statement RC made re current scientific consensus and global warming.The history of science being what it is, however, it is worthwhile to consider scientific consensus in the context of the names of Albert Wegener and Barry Marshall.
If you want to know if I'm a right wing hack, ask Annette Ziegler.(laugh). If there's going to be a commission that investigates her dealings -- I'm badly mangling that phrasing -- I wish it would be done before the election. I think the findings will have some bearing on her suitability as a candidate. We need contingent voting.
It's kind of funny to claim that liberals are elitists when I guarantee you that if you go to any exclusive Country Club, gated community, board room, or elite law firm in this country, conservatives (and registered Republicans) will outnumber liberals by a considerable amount.
I don't know how ones position on science makes one an "elitist". Unfortunately, scientists (or even scientific literacy) in our society (other than in medicine) does not usually gain one entrance into the elite.
Doyle and RC point out a major difference between cons and libs:Cons admit that there's a lot they don't know, and that their views will likely change as they grow older and learn more.Libs declare they know EVERYTHING around age 17 and never waver after that point.
Cons admit that there's a lot they don't know, and that their views will likely change as they grow older and learn more.Seems like the Cons were absolutely certain of everything in the run up to the war in Iraq. Of course almost everything there was "no doubt" about or certain turned out to be wrong. Yet, even to this day, a lot of you refuse to admit any mistakes were made or that you were flat out wrong. Just yesterday somebody on this site was still repeating the fiction that the WMDs were all shipped to Syria.
Hey there's plenty I don't know. Like just how these US Attorneys were selected for the axe. But we're going to find out!
Cons admit that there's a lot they don't know, and that their views will likely change as they grow older and learn more.I don't think I have ever seen a bumper sticker that says "Darwin said it, I believe it, That ends it"
Fred said: "I don't think I have ever seen a bumper sticker that says "Darwin said it, I believe it, That ends it""I'd put such a bumper sticker on my car.
Fred--do those little fish with feet that say darwin in the middle count?
Elitism is a problem for liberals in the same way that prudishness is a problem for conservatives. It will always be this way except for the very few who appear to practice what they preach such as Gandhi. The hypocricy exists because people of power are also people of skill and means. Therefore, if you are saying you are for the little guy and against the rich... such as John Edwards living in a 26,000 square foot house as he complains about two Americas, it presents a quandry for people interested in your message. However, being "like the people" does not mean you will get better governance. For example, Adolf Hitler was very appealing to the middle class and poor because he had little desire for wealth and material goods common among the European Elite. He preferred living in shabby quarters, wearing shabby clothes, etc... He was also the most experienced and courageous combat veteran ever to lead a modern nation. Yet he was a bad leader who made bad military decisions.
Elitism is a problem for liberals in the same way that prudishness is a problem for conservatives.But not all liberals are elite and not all Conservatives are prudes E.g., Newt Gingrich might pretend to be a prude, but he has been married three times, divorced both his ex-wives to marry much younger women with whom he was having adulterous affairs. Fred Thompson, the current hoped for savior of the right, was quite the player (I think he finally settled down and got married) and has been involved with a string of women, including Lorrie Morgan--and lord knows you have to know a whole bunch to keep up with her in bed.
Don't forget Duke Cunningham, whose problem was decidedly not prudishness.
I find the contrast between Democrat elistists and Republican prudes interesting. Of course, both parties have almost the opposite strands in them too - the Democrats have organized labor and the Republicans have most of the libertarians.But the thing that the elitist Democrats and prudish Republicans have in common is that they leave themselves open to the charge of hypocracy. So, Edwards is a hypocrite by talking about Two Americas while living in his 28,000 square foot house on 100 acres across the street from a trailer park, and Gingrich is one by screwing around on his wives and ultimately marrying younger women. Of course, the place where partisanship comes in is that not that many Democrats fault Edwards, and not that many Republicans fault Gingrich (yes, he is flawed, but he delivered the House in 1994 after 40 years of Republicans in the wilderness there... and a lot of Republicans are willing to look the other way at his sex life because of that).
I have seen very few conservatives who will pull their educationional level (and school) as a weapon in arguments, unless as a defense.The elitist libs use that AS an argument, as in: 'I went to Yale, so I know better than you do what is right for you, because you only went to Ohio State'.Cons may appear elite, but teh libs declare that they are.
Gingrich was having an affair while excoriating Clinton for lying about his.Edwards is both rich and concerned about America's poor.Yeah those seem equally hypocritical to me.
DoyleThen you shouldn't take stands on the environment or poor people at any level. Then you wouldn't get labeled with hypocrisy. In fact, if you don't take a stand, you could even abuse the environment [without being labeled a hypocrite].Ta-da.
The elitist libs use that AS an argument, as in: 'I went to Yale, so I know better than you do what is right for you, because you only went to Ohio State'.I've never run into this attitude among liberals except in movies. Could it be cliche? Or is it cliché?
I've never run into this attitude among liberals except in moviesNah, its prevalent. Google some of the editorials about Blue vs Red states after the 2000 election. Red states were labelled unsophisticated culturally illiterate redneck hicks b/c we didn't follow the advice of our sophisiticated enlightened betters.
Edwards is both rich and concerned about America's poor.Edwards is concerned about America's poor the way that George Bush is concerned about global warming. He acknowledges there's a problem, talks about how important it is to solve it, and never actually does anything about it.He is consistently rich, though, I'll give him that. :)
Conservative elites (country clubs and board rooms) are there by virtus of financial means and/or social status. They may or may not be smart but when they need a smart person, they just hire one.Intellectual elites (typically liberal) can't easily show their elitism except by arguing, becoming a college professor or a journalist.Most conservatives aren't elites and they damn sure don't like their sister in law lecturing them about politics, because she listens to NPR and got a 99% prcentile on her ACT in 1973.Also intellectual ability does not equal intellectual honesty and does not imply common sense.
First. read the entire NY'er article.Putting Fatboy or Turdblossom as our Decider in Chief calls him under oath and turning him on the grill could be high impact television. Maybe Ann will even notice the story if she can get away from American Idol.
Gingrich was having an affair while excoriating Clinton for lying about his.Edwards is both rich and concerned about America's poor.Yeah those seem equally hypocritical to me.Yep. Kinda like being a war supporter and not serving in the army. Kinda blows that whole chickenhawk argument out of the water doesn't it?It boils down to appearences folks, leading by example. Kind of like telling me to conserve energy by less consumption yet you own 4 houses and use 20x the energy that the unwashed do. I don't think anyone is saying Gore or Edward's have to live in cardboard shacks but the message doesn't seem to resonate very well when your lifestyle is so out of touch with the common man (or woman).
Putting Fatboy or Turdblossom as our Decider in Chief calls him under oath and turning him on the grill could be high impact televisionWho the hell are you talking about? You're cute little nicknames are confusing.But at least you admit its all a "show trial". Thanks for that.
Post a Comment