Republicans - Intellectuals (A.K.A. The Smart People) are bad?

With all due respect Gtec, George and NPT if you are in an accident and laying on the road, or even having a heart attack at the mall, you are not going to give a rats tail to where the person graduated. You will only be asking for help.

 

This is true. However, being in an accident and laying on the road was not part of the scenario. As no such scenario was introduced, my mindset was more on having been diagnosed with cancer or something similar.

 

That's true. Being diagnosed with cancer, you would surely want someone that has had success and experience treating that specific type of cancer regardless of what piece of paper was framed in his office.



NPT did you find what you keep bringing up?

 

Its probably hard to remember all the crap you sling around here. I could not be in more agreement with North with every post he makes in response to you.

 

Thank you for the considerate thought, Brown.

I saw this from Biz and actually didn't want to dignify it. Among others, investigate this thread, I suppose, for a start. I think it's pretty apparent, actually.

 

Actually, posting something in the Sarah Palin thread, I had forgotten David Brooks's comments topical to this thread.

I agree with him. Growing very hard to label this a "left smear" thing, when even conservative writers are voicing the same concerns.

 

Brown and NPT if I remember correct you two started slinging crap before I ever started posting. It is not hard to see you two for what you guys are. Yes NPT, I got a similar rep it wasn't exactly the same but similar and I get reps like that often. You keep bringing up stuff I never stated, you are showing you ignorance in doing so. If it entertains you to lie like you have been doing by all means continue doing so. I still support Sara Palin regardless of your lies and attacks on her from day one when you knew nothing about her.

 

Haha touche sir. Well played.

 

Might to make some Democrats feel better to think so, but Republicans aren't "anti-intellectual" to start with. [I might add that saying one is going to vote for an intellectual doesn't MAKE anyone an intellectual, tho to read a few posts around here some seem to believe that myth.]

I don't oppose Obama because he is an intellectual (and giving credit where due, he's an excellent scholar)... I oppose him because the idea that government is here to "redistribute wealth" (or in his terms... "spread the wealth around", same thing) is not in keeping with its constitutional mandate. There isn't a question whether he thinks that IS a proper function of government. That's just a disagreement on principle, not anti-intellectualism. I'm not under the impression socialism would work if we just had a guy with a great GPA to implement it.

Possibly where the misunderstanding arises that leads some to think Republicans oppose "intellectuals" is that some of us place experience ahead of untested education and proven track record ahead of a great resume.

To put it in context, I think in terms of a dangerous scenario (and God knows we ARE in one). If I were standing on a battlefield between a shavetail fresh in from a having graduated top of his class at West Point... and on the other side was a Master Gunnery Sgt with long experience in the theater of operations... if we hear an incoming round, and the scholar dives left and the seasoned vet dives right... I'm NOT denigrating the Lieutenant's degree when I dive to the right, just exercising my right to suspect experience might mean more than GPA at that point.

You don't have to agree with me of course, that's why we have a vote to begin with, but suggesting that Republicans dislike "smart" people is just a straw man argument. In the long run the voters will hopefully decide this election based on the candidates track records, not rhetoric from either side. We'll have to live with the decision, so hopefully its a good one. If I'm a betting man this race is closer than some think it is.

 

There's a great opportunity to tone down the animosity and vitriol on both sides in pretty much every thread in this place. Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to dial it down. It's possible for us to disagree without suggesting someone holding an opposing view is a moron, a traitor, etc... and might make the place a tad more tolerable.

 

It's a good post, Rob, and as with your reasoning behind your view of the Powell endorsement, I can respect your position here.

That said, I'd like to reiterate it respectfully, but plainly. I'd relish a principled debate of true conservatism v. true liberalism. I love conservative thinkers, going all the way back to Edmund Burke. What troubles me is that I think the conservative commentator David Brooks is right, respecting what has happened to the GOP:

I've not been speaking to this for months out of some kind of DP subterranean intent to peel votes away from the Republican party; I've been sincere. I think there has been a horrible rightward shift of the party into a non-thinking land where the very idea of investigating ideas is seen as "elitist," and "liberal." For the good of the GOP, and the national discourse, I sincerely hope the party tosses the bums out who have so seriously skewed it over the last course of time, and return to a considered position of principled conservatism.

 

Guess I was paying more attention to the horrible leftward shift in fiscal policy. Despite the ability to piss off the liberals at the drop of a hat, the existing regime spent more time growing government than shrinking it... which makes the gap between traditional GOP vs DNC values dwindle.

Also, note that despite the animosity betw the two parties in financial matters... both current candidates supported a hastily organized bailout that totally defies free market economic theory. I don't think most of America has a clue how large a number $800 Billion is, or how many similar bailouts they are gonna get into because of this precedent. Politicians stay in office by using money to buy loyalty, and it's Christmas time at the hog trough for whichever team gains control of the recently voted "money from nowhere" they're gonna print without any value to back it.

Neither party is "wowing" me with their limited government stance here, and one of them is supposedly in favor of it. It's like the choices are to vote for the Democrats with a left leaning social agenda or the right leaning version. Newsflash... there's nothing in the constitution (the enabling document that allows us to HAVE a government) about it being here to advance ANY social agenda to start with.

It'd be nice to see one party or the other acknowledge that fact and get back to just defending the country, dealing with foreign policy, making sure the items that the constitution tells them to do are attended to. I'm pretty sure as a nation we don't need moral direction from anyone that's spent an extended amount of time in DC. The first thing that comes to mind is term limits for politicians so we'd get back to the kind of serving citizen intended when the founding fathers put this thing together. I don't want amateurs, but I do want people that understand that if they fuck up the economy they're gonna be out there having to deal with it personally in a few years... not in a cozy spot where special interests pick up the tabs not covered by the last raise the congress just gave itself.

Incidentally, not liking professional politicians doesnt mean I'm "anti-intellectual"... just means if I'm gonna get screwed I'd at least like a little freakin variety of partners. Career politicians have not done a good job. Adding a term limit would mean we'd quit having legislation passed by guys that dont have a clue what it's like have to meet a payroll. That'd be "change I could believe in".

 

I have to say this was a good example of the conversation. I am of the same mind as well that I would probably dive with the more experienced one as well. Not saying experience ALWAYS wins, but from what I've seen about life and certain professions (like soldier, doctor, firefighter, cop) I would almost always side with experience. We make our young doctors go through residency and work grueling 36 hour shifts for one reason: to gain experience and learn things that can't be taught from a book. You have to think on your feet after 36 hours of no sleep, too much coffee, and running off of pure adrenaline. You have 2 minutes to decide if the patient is well enough to go to CT to get a scan, or if their heart has a hole in it and needs surgery IMMEDIATELY. Can't learn that shit from a book.....

 

This is a principled, well reasoned post, Rob, something I think is part of a worthwhile debate. Given your views, can I ask your views on the Ron Paul/Libertarian/Constitution Party platforms?

 

Admit to not having read theirs... despte the fact that my own views easily fall more into the Libertarian than the Republican. I vote GOP based on the "lesser of the *electable* evils" theory, but my political leanings are far more PJ O'Rourke than Pat Robertson.

Like many I'd welcome the emergence of a strong third party, and I think one built on the libertarian model would appeal to a lot of people. Currently a third party has a hard time drawing people that recall Ross Perot's first run siphoning support primarily from one party and causing the victor to be the guy with the least ideas in common with what the majority of those casting their ballot wanted.

For a third party to be a reality it will have to draw some from both sides... which may happen when a party gains traction with a viable candidate that is socially moderate (less intrusive) and fiscally conservative (ie - small government). That'd draw voters like me that don't especially enjoy the folks that want to legislate morality, but neither do they wish to become their brother's keeper.

That's the makeup of the next "viable" national party (imo)... and it'd be interesting to see a third hold sway without one of the other two imploding. In 200 + years we've never been able to keep more than 2 parties alive for any length of time... generally the emergence of a third causes one of the others to crash. Looking at it statistically we *should* be able to support four.

social * fiscal
C * C
C * L
L * C
L * L

Code (markup):

Toss in moderates and you get a whole host of options, b ut as long as there are coalitions willing to make deals to gain control of the steering wheel it places an upper limit on the amount of parties that can stay afloat. Still I'd think the number should exceed two.

All IMO... just observation, not science.

 

What really funny about the thread is the misleading title. I think most people consider the Republicans Intellectuals or The Smart People. The Republicans at least understand job creation and the economy.

 

just like bush

 

this seems to be the best place for this video.
crazy pug representing crazy pugs. where do these people come from. oh i forgot GOP. NO TRACE OF INTELLIGENCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bT01mC9xSA&feature=related

 

Because Bush and Mr. Maverick are the best you have to offer, I will simply LOL and move on.

 

Would you ever vote Republican? Serious question