Sorry Everyone

[FlamesAddiction]

Why do conservatives hate intellectuals anyway? Isn't being an intellectual a good thing? Karl Rove even quipped one time that people vote Republican until they get too much education proving that there is such thing as too much of a good thing. I really don't understand this thinking among neoconservatives, many of whom are intellectuals themselves (albeit Straussians).

Can someone explain this? I'm not tying to start something, but I can't get my head around it. It seems so silly.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 11 2004, 11:27 PM
Here we go again. No more DIS than the Republicans appealed to the lowest common denomenator with fear mongering, repetition, and outright lies. I'm sick of the elitist dig. The dems are for more equality amongst people, for gays, for the middle class and choice for women. The religious right are for limiting rights and controling the whole of the US with their "values" which is elitist?

That's a great point. Conservatism is all about preferential treatment for their "elite", whether it's the economically elite or morally elite. Par example, you only get to marry if you follow our rules for it. That's the definition of elitism: the belief that there should be preferential treatment for a certain group of people. Elitism is one of the most misused words in the English language. It doesn't mean "I think I'm better than you". That's not elitism, that's arrogance or condescension. Elitism is "I think I'm better than you, therefore I deserve X". That's got Republican/conservative written all over it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 12 2004, 06:27 AM

Here we go again. No more DIS than the Republicans appealed to the lowest common denomenator with fear mongering, repetition, and outright lies. I'm sick of the elitist dig. The dems are for more equality amongst people, for gays, for the middle class and choice for women. The religious right are for limiting rights and controling the whole of the US with their "values" which is elitist?

Your description of what each party stands for is very simplistic.

In addition, you give the dems points for purity of intentions and chastise the Republicans for lying. I disagree with both.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Nov 12 2004, 08:03 AM

True, but there is some foundation to it. Are you one of the 70% of Bush supporters that believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda? How about the one-third that think WMD's were found in Iraq or another third that think a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion?

I really don't know what to make of numbers like this and what is the Democratic Party supposed to do? The facts are already out there and yet these people only hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe to suit their views. It's like talking to trees.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...326924,00.html

Oh, and I know you personally don't fall into any of those categories, I was just making a point when I questioned you directly, heh...

As you alluded to at the end, no...I'm not in any of those categories.

To be honest with you, I don't believe those numbers. For example, just the first one alone.....which has never even been insinuated in my mind (at least in the context portrayed with you adjectives) you'd be talking about 40 million people.

I'd like to know exactly how those numbers were developed. I'll give the links a try after work and see if I can find out.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Five-hole+Nov 12 2004, 09:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Five-hole @ Nov 12 2004, 09:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Nov 11 2004, 11:27 PM
Here we go again. No more DIS than the Republicans appealed to the lowest common denomenator with fear mongering, repetition, and outright lies. I'm sick of the elitist dig. The dems are for more equality amongst people, for gays, for the middle class and choice for women. The religious right are for limiting rights and controling the whole of the US with their "values" which is elitist?

That's a great point. Conservatism is all about preferential treatment for their "elite", whether it's the economically elite or morally elite. Par example, you only get to marry if you follow our rules for it. That's the definition of elitism: the belief that there should be preferential treatment for a certain group of people. Elitism is one of the most misused words in the English language. It doesn't mean "I think I'm better than you". That's not elitism, that's arrogance or condescension. Elitism is "I think I'm better than you, therefore I deserve X". That's got Republican/conservative written all over it. [/b][/quote]
Kerry and Edwards both against gay marriage. Yet that's the issue that gets brought up most in this argument. You might want to try again....

and let's remember something...gay marriage has never been 'legal' in the US. It's not like the Bush administration swept in and took away rights of citizens on this one. Why has the issue never been brought up in American politics on such a large scale before now? Why wasn't the champion of equal rights, Bill Clinton, hammered for not doing anything about it?

[Flame On]

Kerry and Edwards both against gay marriage. Yet that's the issue that gets brought up most in this argument. You might want to try again....

and let's remember something...gay marriage has never been 'legal' in the US. It's not like the Bush administration swept in and took away rights of citizens on this one. Why has the issue never been brought up in American politics on such a large scale before now? Why wasn't the champion of equal rights, Bill Clinton, hammered for not doing anything about it?

But at least it's something they're talking about like it's a human issue, and you're splitting hairs. They're all for gay unions which the republicans won't even talk about. I over simplify things?! Mr.The democratic party has taken to an elitist, pretentious, condescending air. Talk about over simplification and frankly outright inaccuracy!!! Oh and we're not talking about other administrations records, we're talking about the current Democrats being labelled as elitist. They're trying to put forward some laws that your countries values would seem to support; you know that little Life Liberty and pursuit of Happines gem.
By way of example:

BY SCHUYLER KROPF
Of The Post and Courier staff
U.S. Senate Republican candidate Jim DeMint, in a leadoff televised debate with Democratic rival Inez Tenenbaum, said homosexuals should not be allowed to teach in South Carolina public schools

DeMint's comment on gays came in response to a moderator's question about a state Republican Party platform plank that opposes hiring gay teachers. It opened the door to an argument new to the Senate race, which will choose a successor for retiring Democratic Sen. Fritz Hollings.
"If a person wants to be publicly gay, they should not be teaching in the public schools," DeMint, a three-term congressman from Greenville, repeated for reporters after the debate ended.

Yes only the christian hetrosexuals should be allowed to teach DIS, damn those elite democrats!

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 12 2004, 09:53 AM
But at least it's something they're talking about like it's a human issue, and you're splitting hairs. They're all for gay unions which the republicans won't even talk about.

Actually, Bush himself came out FOR same sex unions a couple of weeks before the election (something that I'm sure caused a ripple or two in his party).

Bush Breaks With GOP

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 12 2004, 03:53 PM
But at least it's something they're talking about like it's a human issue, and you're splitting hairs. They're all for gay unions which the republicans won't even talk about.

Bush/Cheney both said they were in favor of civil unions for gay couples.

You like to argue based on assumptions and not accurate information. That's twice in this thread. How will you spin it this time?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Is it just me, or is the 3rd guy down, first page in the gallery the singer from the Bare Naked Ladies?

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Nov 12 2004, 04:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Nov 12 2004, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Nov 12 2004, 03:53 PM
But at least it's something they're talking about like it's a human issue, and you're splitting hairs. They're all for gay unions which the republicans won't even talk about.

Bush/Cheney both said they were in favor of civil unions for gay couples.

You like to argue based on assumptions and not accurate information. That's twice in this thread. How will you spin it this time? [/b][/quote]
Yawn:You like to argue based on assumptions and not accurate information. It's not like they've actually put any proposals through that would allow those unions. Coming out a couple of weeks before the election with half assed support for something with no meat to it, doesn't strike me as exactly requiring spin. Ask a gay couple which candidate they feel was elitist, there's your accurate info. Otherwise two weeks before an election is too little too late.
But that's all smoke and mirrors to my main point which is the fact that for the most part republicans want to control with their agenda. They just call it "values".

[Daradon]

Fundamentalism isn't just growing in Islam...

The difference is we are supposed to be the educated...

(I don't know what is more elitest than a fundamentalist...)

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 13 2004, 06:06 AM

Yawn:You like to argue based on assumptions and not accurate information. It's not like they've actually put any proposals through that would allow those unions. Coming out a couple of weeks before the election with half assed support for something with no meat to it, doesn't strike me as exactly requiring spin. Ask a gay couple which candidate they feel was elitist, there's your accurate info. Otherwise two weeks before an election is too little too late.
But that's all smoke and mirrors to my main point which is the fact that for the most part republicans want to control with their agenda. They just call it "values".

Yawn...your sarcasm is so hilarious...yawn FLAME ON yawn....civil unions are legal in many states. Not everything in my country is governed on the National level. Many issues are left up to each individual state to decide. Again, you're speaking from a position of ignorance. My lesbian sister (swear to God) voted for Bush and thinks homosexual marriage is a money grab and nothing more. She's in a monogamous long term relationship and lives in California.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 13 2004, 03:17 PM
Yawn...your sarcasm is so hilarious...yawn FLAME ON yawn....civil unions are legal in many states. Not everything in my country is governed on the National level. Many issues are left up to each individual state to decide. Again, you're speaking from a position of ignorance. My lesbian sister (swear to God) voted for Bush and thinks homosexual marriage is a money grab and nothing more. She's in a monogamous long term relationship and lives in California.

No DIS it's not sarcasm, you've gotten something else wrong....again. I find you tiresome. Sorry. It just seems like you make a point, I talk about that point and you make a side point about something else. On this occasion what other states have done by way of their laws with gay unions is irrelevant. Did Bush promote those laws, no. Did he make any ACTUAL proposals for cival unions? No. How long has he been championing civil unions, as you suggest? I was making the over arching claim that the republicans, especially now are using their "values" to spread to all and that's elitism. You've fixated about the gay issue. Granted I did mention that and I still think it's part of the whole of the point, but it's not all of it as you are clinging to. Basically I'm asking you pointblank: Are the republicans better for gay issues on a national or cumulative state by state level or not? Add that issue to others i've mentioned and that's my point, more restriction from their corner = more elitism.
Oh and I don't really know how to react about your sister. She believes it's a money grab, fine. But ask her if she'd like to be able to have the choice, or whether she prefers being dictated to about the choices she has. I know which I think she'll answer if honest.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On+Nov 14 2004, 01:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Nov 14 2004, 01:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Nov 13 2004, 03:17 PM
Yawn...your sarcasm is so hilarious...yawn FLAME ON yawn....civil unions are legal in many states. Not everything in my country is governed on the National level. Many issues are left up to each individual state to decide. Again, you're speaking from a position of ignorance. My lesbian sister (swear to God) voted for Bush and thinks homosexual marriage is a money grab and nothing more. She's in a monogamous long term relationship and lives in California.

No DIS it's not sarcasm, you've gotten something else wrong....again. I find you tiresome. Sorry. It just seems like you make a point, I talk about that point and you make a side point about something else. On this occasion what other states have done by way of their laws with gay unions is irrelevant. Did Bush promote those laws, no. Did he make any ACTUAL proposals for cival unions? No. How long has he been championing civil unions, as you suggest? I was making the over arching claim that the republicans, especially now are using their "values" to spread to all and that's elitism. You've fixated about the gay issue. Granted I did mention that and I still think it's part of the whole of the point, but it's not all of it as you are clinging to. Basically I'm asking you pointblank: Are the republicans better for gay issues on a national or cumulative state by state level or not? Add that issue to others i've mentioned and that's my point, more restriction from their corner = more elitism.
Oh and I don't really know how to react about your sister. She believes it's a money grab, fine. But ask her if she'd like to be able to have the choice, or whether she prefers being dictated to about the choices she has. I know which I think she'll answer if honest. [/b][/quote]
You need to take a course on American government. The meat of your post is irrelevant to the conversation.

Civil unions are legal in many states...ie...they are a STATE matter in the US...as are many OTHER issues including....the death penalty, abortion, and on and on.

How can I have a conversation with you if every post you make is full of venom and you speak from a position of ignorance on the subject at hand?