badgenome said:
Believe me, you don't have to tell me how much liberals love to fetishize minorities. I'm also well aware of how vicious they are when someone who happens to be a minority dares to stray from the Democrat plantation... Clarence Thomas, for example, who is the most well known Supreme Court Justice today for the sole reason that the Dems turned his confirmation into a total circus out of pure spite. The idea that Obama is the Smartest Man in the World is entirely a media contrivance, just as was the idea that Bush was so incredibly stupid. If the media trumpeted every time Obama stumbled when his teleprompter failed or got something assbackwards (little things like, I dunno, the fact that his health care reform plan bends the cost curve up and not down?) the same way they did every time Bush fell off his bike or choked on a pretzel, he'd be just as much a laughing stock. |
Whoever called Obama the snartest man in the world. People said he was atriculate, the same way they said Reagan was. In the case of Bush, it was brought on himself. Bush mangled the the English language and did everything possible to be an embarrassment. In contrast to Bush, Obama is far less that. Not mangling the English language the way Bush did, helps people think you aren't dumb.
Again, it is contrast, no matter what you say here. It is this contrast that inanely awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush.
Anyhow, if you want to have this as some sort of argument, and competitive sport, to score points and "win" by making liberalism out to be more evil than conservatism, you can. I would rather it morph into something constructive, that is of value. I feel it is better this way.
To get back an earlier point about IQ and liberalism, consider this article in the National Standard on IQ and moral tyranny:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/730avutr.asp
Discussing the nature and relevance of intellect would matter here, and be of greater value than trying to one up examples of that which sucks. Like, how important is it? One can argue effectively that that Reagan wasn't as smart as Carter, but governed better, while the opposite of Clinton vs Bush Jr. can also be argued. And then there is the basis of this thread, is if there is a level of stupidity one can sink to which would make them removed from the arena of political discourse like a sign that tells people to "Get a brain morans!". Also, is it better that individual argue from what what is superior, rather than selectively doing "But so and so".
I am getting really very much interested in trying to avoid politics, and have people tell me stuff. I find out why you discuss religion and politics. I think you are a really cool poster, but then this political stuff comes up, and it causes the opinion to possibly be changed.
