Hello:

When Sarah Palin refers to the "elite", who is she talking about? I think she's talking about EDUCATED people. When she refers to her constituency as people with "common sense", who is she talking about? I think she's talking about UNEDUCATED people.

Consequently the UNEDUCATED appear to be a constituency whose leaders are INTENT on keeping them that way. How do they do this?? Simply by keeping science and civics OUT of the classroom and bringing religion in.

You can argue with me by telling me this ISN'T happening. But, of course, it is. In fact, I believe the dumbing down of America is PURPOSEFUL. You?

excon

Wrong premise . When she speaks of the elites ,she speaks of progressive,liberal ,Washington DC ,or Hollywood elites. She is not referring to their level of education.

It is these "elites" she is referring to who think the people who do things like attend tea party rallies or oppose the progressive agenda are the uneducated ya-hoos.

They even wrote a book about the stupid people who don't see things their way.
'What's the Matter with Kansas?' tries to explain the ignorant folks who ,according to the author vote ,against their own self interest .
The elite progressives creamed when they read this because it affirmed all their misconceptions about the people in "flyover country".
It was on the bible of the elites ;the NY Slimes best seller's list for 18 weeks .

Like you ,the author of this book presumes that the unwashed masses are led like sheeple because they are too stupid to weigh the benefits of the opposing positions and come to conclusions on their own.

The obvious flaws in your thesis is that overwhelmingly the poorer less educated people of this country tend to support the liberals agenda of a government nanny-state.It is the progressives who have a stake in keeping the poor and uneducated ignorant. It is this group that they count on as a voting block.

Further ,the underlying assumption that it is manipulation of social issues that keeps us dummies stirred up is false. The tea party movement has been almost totally an economic revolt against a government that thinks everyone has a bottomless pocket.It is resistance to the expansion of government power, and intrusiveness.It is the national debt fueled by out of control spending that has fueled this movement.

And how have the "elites " those people you think are educated responded ? They are contemptuous of people who disagree with them . Tea party supporters are called tea-baggers .A legitimate grass roots movement is disparaged as "astro-turf". We are racists for not going along with the radical agenda of the President. We are nativists because we think the government should control illegal immigration . We are homophobic for opposing a radical redefinition of marriage .And now our phobias have extended to Muslims because we think it's a bad idea to build a towering mosque over the WTC site .

We the "bitter clingers" (Obama's words to a gathering of wine and brie "educated elites "in San Fran) are a bunch of Know-nothings according to Timothy Egan of the NY Slimes.

It is the progressives in this country who think that the masses are insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an aristocracy of educated(leftist) elites.

Now for the crisis in the class room. The real crisis in the class room is the system that has been constructed to manage the class room... not the subject matter . If you have any proof that conservatives do not want science taught or even better civics I'd like to see it produced.

Hello:

When Sarah Palin refers to the "elite", who is she talking about? I think she's talking about EDUCATED people. When she refers to her constituency as people with "common sense", who is she talking about? I think she's talking about UNEDUCATED people.

Consequently the UNEDUCATED appear to be a constituency whose leaders are INTENT on keeping them that way. How do they do this??? Simply by keeping science and civics OUT of the classroom and bringing religion in.

You can argue with me by telling me this ISN'T happening. But, of course, it is. In fact, I believe the dumbing down of America is PURPOSEFUL. You?

excon

Your argument begins with the premise that the people weren't dumb in the first place. Teaching Christianity in the classroom doesn't make you dumb, some of the smartest people in the world have believed in God, what is dumb is a belief in science when it continually fails us with half baked explanations which are later overturned. What I have said for a long time, ex, is it's hard to find someone with below average intelligence yet they must live somewhere, could it be they all live in the same place?

Your argument begins with the premise that the people wern't dumb in the first place. Teaching Christianity in the classroom doesn't make you dumb, some of the smartest people in the world have believed in God, what is dumb is a belief in science when it continually fails us with half baked explanations which are later overturned. What I have said for a long time, ex, is it's hard to find someone with below average intelligence yet they must live somewhere, could it be they all live in the same place?

Check your local trailer park ;)

Check your local trailer park ;)

Don't have them in the same way you do but we do have a whole northern section that ain't doing much

Hello again,

On my local TV, there's currently a commercial running that's paid for by The American Petroleum Institute. It features some really DUMB people saying they shouldn't raise taxes on the oil company's. I'll bet you've seen it.

I'm not talking about just dull people. I'm talking about REALLY DUMB ones. It's also no accident that they have southern drawls too. At least the corporations know WHO to appeal to.

I also think they have something to do with MAKING 'em that way. You? Not so much.

excon

You see them as really dumb . I call them working people. They think that raising taxes that will be added on to prices they pay is a bad idea. The really smart people think a windmill will fuel their cars.

Btw . What the government has to do is look at where subsidies are being granted. What is the point in raising taxes when subsidies are being granted to the same industry ? But I guess those really smart people in Congress know what they are doing too.

I was going to offer an answer but tom pretty much said it all in post no. 2 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/elite-crisis-classroom-502912.html#post2503698).

The obvious flaws in your thesis is that overwhelmingly the poorer less educated people of this country tend to support the liberals agenda of a government nanny-state.It is the progressives who have a stake in keeping the poor and uneducated ignorant.
[citation needed]

I'll give a citation when the assumptions in the op are sourced..

Hello tom:

When you're the FIRST one to discover a problem, there AIN'T no source stuff.

excon

Here is the socio-economic breakdown for the 2008 cycle (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/how-went-2008-election-looking-only-at.html):

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/%7Ecook/movabletype/mlm/pewmaps.png

Hello steve:

I didn't say dumb people were poor. They're just dumb. I don't mean ignorant, either. I was ignorant once, until I decided to cure that deficiency. Dumb people don't even know they're dumb.

excon

I didn't say dumb people were poor. They're just dumb. I don't mean ignorant, either. I was ignorant once, until I decided to cure that deficiency. Dumb people don't even know they're dumb.

Tom said: The obvious flaws in your thesis is that overwhelmingly the poorer less educated people of this country tend to support the liberals agenda of a government nanny-state.It is the progressives who have a stake in keeping the poor and uneducated ignorant.

NK said: [citation needed]

You said: When you're the FIRST one to discover a problem, there AIN'T no source stuff.

I merely provided a citation. Of course it doesn't provide education details but typically, poorer people are less educated wouldn't you agree?

You think "the UNEDUCATED appear to be a constituency whose leaders are INTENT on keeping them that way." You then ask, "How do they do this???"

Since the poor overwhelmingly vote Democratic, and the poor are generally less educated, it would seem the Democrat elites want to keep that constituency dumbed down. How do they do that? By keeping them dependent on the nanny state and dumbing down education.

It ain't conservatives that run the public schools in this country, and it ain't conservatives that run the vast majority of colleges and universities in this country. So I'd say your logic is not just a little but entirely flawed on this one, ex.

Tom said: The obvious flaws in your thesis is that overwhelmingly the poorer less educated people of this country tend to support the liberals agenda of a government nanny-state.Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, that's what tom said. I said something different. The poor that he's talking about is a much different constituency, than the uneducated that I'm talking about. Yeah, the poor tend to be uneducated - true. But, there is a HUGE segment of the population that ISN'T poor, yet remain uneducated... That's who I'm talking about.

For example, civics. If this segment of the population understood CIVICS, this whole thing about the mosque wouldn't amount to a hill of beans... I mean, if you understood civics, wouldn't you want to support the American way? Wouldn't you be against torture? Wouldn't you be for the freedom of all people?

I think you would. Or, do I misunderstand what we're about? Nahh. I don't misunderstand... At one time WE were the beacon of civil rights in the world. That was an HONOR we could claim... We lost it, and haven't reclaimed it, no matter what Beck says. If you understand civics, how can you let torturers off the hook?

excon

Hi, Ex:

You're absolutely right. The leaders of the uneducated are trying to keep them that way by keeping science and civics out of the classroom. The Feudalist Liberals have been eradicating the sciences, including political science, from public education since the 70s. One could argue it started with Benjamin Spock in the 50s but took awhile to get going.

The Feudalist Liberals have been eradicating the sciences, including political science, from public education since the 70s. What? Isn't the conservative fundies that want that?

Yeah, that's what tom said. I said something different. The poor that he's talking about is a much different constituency, than the uneducated that I'm talking about. Yeah, the poor tend to be uneducated - true. But, there is a HUGE segment of the population that ISN'T poor, yet remain uneducated... That's who I'm talking about.

Both are products of the elitist liberals that tom, catsmine and Palin are referring to. The liberal elite is responsible for the nanny statism that keeps the poor enslave, and for the state of education in this country. You know darn well who is in control of education in this country and it ain't conservatives.

You have Deemocrats in control of both houses and the WH, and this is just one more argument you're losing so your trying to turn the tables on us for the mess the left has created. It won't work, the people are not fooled any longer and that's what has you riled.

What? Isn't the conservative fundies that want that?

Who wants what is not my point. It is happening so the ones in charge of the school curriculum for half a century must be the ones who desire it.

Who wants what is not my point. It is happening so the ones in charge of the school curriculum for half a century must be the ones who desire it.My sister has all three of her kids in school in Boston and they all have science classes. Where is it that science has been taken off the curriculum?

My sister has all three of her kids in school in Boston and they all have science classes. Where is it that science has been taken off the curriculum?

Are they being taught both Darwin's Theory and Human caused Climate Change? Are they being taught that both are theories? Are they being taught the difference between the scientific method and the scholastic method? In many public school systems the only "yes" answer is to the first question.

Wait a minute, you talked about science being taking out of the classroom and suddenly you changed the conversation to evolution and climate change. How did that happen?

I didn't know what the scholastic method was so I looked it up (Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholastic_method#Scholastic_Method)) it sounds horrible, more like preaching.

What's the difference between that and the Socratic method ?

Don't know.

what's the difference between that and the Socratic method ?

Hi Tom,

Difficult question to answer in limited space.

The Socratic method can be seen as a dialectic method of reasoning. Socrates showed that when we have opposing points of view the 'reality' is that little progress can be made. I guess this is fairly evident in this type of forum. I suppose Socrates would want to say that when we are subject to close questioning we don't really know about the subject matter at hand. Hence, the lack of progress.

The Christian Schoolmen wanted to show that opposing points of view could be synthesized to produce a reasonable interpretation and thus progress. The 'reasonable interpretation' could be seen as more of a realization within individual minds.

Dialectical reasoning got a bad name during the modern era with Hegel and Marx. It was seen as a type of 'progress' or synthesis operating 'outside' of the mind.

Scholasticism lost a lot of appeal in the modern era possibly through the efforts of Marx and Hegel. No doubt many saw a link to totalitarianism.The other reason was that this type of thinking was regarded as a type of Idealism and largely an European phenomenon.As such it didn't receive much credibility especially in light of the rapid development of the scientific method.

Much criticism may come of such a brief summary.


Regards

Tut

40 years of leftist Gramscian indoctrination* hits a bit of a speed bump in Texas and look at the reaction. I don't think it a coincidence that during the same time the US public education system has devolved into one of the worse in the world .
*
Gramsci believed that if Communism achieved "mastery of human consciousness," then labor camps and mass murder would be unnecessary. How does an ideology gain such mastery over patterns of thought inculcated by cultures for hundreds of years? Mastery over the consciousness of the great mass of people would be attained, Gramsci contended, if Communists or their sympathizers gained control of the organs of culture — churches, education, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, serious literature, music, the visual arts, and so on. By winning "cultural hegemony," to use Gramsci's own term, Communism would control the deepest wellsprings of human thought and imagination. One need not even control all of the information itself if one can gain control over the minds that assimilate that information. Under such conditions, serious opposition disappears since men are no longer capable of grasping the arguments of Marxism's opponents. Men will indeed "love their servitude," and will not even realize that it is servitude.
Antonio Gramsci (http://www.sunray22b.net/antonio_gramsci.htm)

hi tom,

difficult question to answer in limited space.

The socratic method can be seen as a dialectic method of reasoning. Socrates showed that when we have opposing points of view the 'reality' is that little progress can be made. I guess this is fairly evident in this type of forum. I suppose socrates would want to say that when we are subject to close questioning we don't really know about the subject matter at hand. Hence, the lack of progress.

The christian schoolmen wanted to show that opposing points of view could be synthesized to produce a reasonable interpretation and thus progress. The 'reasonable interpretation' could be seen as more of a realization within individual minds.

Dialectical reasoning got a bad name during the modern era with hegel and marx. It was seen as a type of 'progress' or synthesis operating 'outside' of the mind.

Scholasticism lost a lot of appeal in the modern era possibly through the efforts of marx and hegel. No doubt many saw a link to totalitarianism.the other reason was that this type of thinking was regarded as a type of idealism and largely an european phenomenon.as such it didn't receive much credibility especially in light of the rapid development of the scientific method.

Much criticism may come of such a brief summary.


Regards

tut

Thanks .that was a fantastic summary !

the US public education system has devolved into one of the worse in the world . Hello tom:

We agree. We disagree, however, on whose causing it. You think it's liberals, but liberals don't benefit from a dumbed down population - conservatives do.

If everybody was educated, the GOP would be toast.

excon

Hello tom:

We agree. We disagree, however, on whose causing it. You think it's liberals, but liberals don't benefit from a dumbed down population - conservatives do.

So liberals, who overwhelmingly control the public school and university systems aren't actually educating our kids and controlling the agenda, conservatives are. You certainly aren't going to win the argument with that 'logic.'

So tell me how conservatives benefit more from a dumbed down populace because I don't see how that would be possible. What I do see is many, many of my conservative friends and family members that opted - through great sacrifice for many of them - to send their kids to private schools or home schooled them. Both regularly outperform their public school educated counterparts.

So tell me how conservatives benefit more from a dumbed down populace because I don't see how that would be possible.
Are they being taught both Darwin's Theory and Human caused Climate Change? Are they being taught that both are theories? Hello again, Steve:

Case in point. If the kids you mentioned are being home schooled the way Cats would have them home schooled, they're going to wind up DUMB!

You say you don't know WHAT benefit conservatives receive from a dumbed down population, but I can tell you one. DUMB people vote overwhelmingly for the GOP. SMART people vote for the other guys.

Booya!

excon

DUMB people vote overwhelmingly for the GOP. SMART people vote for the other guys.

Citations needed.

Citations needed.Hello again, steve:

Turn on your TV, and watch the stupid dummies who the oil industry hired to influence the public. They're certainly not trying to influence SMART people. THAT is all the citation you need.

excon

That's not evidence at all, ex. When faced with the facts here you're just making stuff up.

the stupid dummies who the oil industry hired

The ones with the Ph.D's?

By the way, the education I prefer teaches the scientific method where the data is questioned, rather than the authority of the people interpreting the data. When you test the data, you get facts. When you test the authorities, you get opinions.

40 years of leftist Gramscian indoctrination* hits a bit of a speed bump in Texas and look at the reaction. I don't think it a coincidence that during the same time period the US public education system has devolved into one of the worse in the world .
*
Antonio Gramsci (http://www.sunray22b.net/antonio_gramsci.htm)

Hi Tom,

Sounds a lot like Orwell's 1984.

I am not sure to what extent (if any) Orwell was influenced by Gramsci . He was no doubt influenced by the Spanish Civil War and the events taking place in Russia.

I think the idea of 'indoctrination' is more of a totalitarian phenomenon( battle for the mind) rather than being particular in terms of Communism or Fascism

Regards

Tut

In the context of the class room indoctination is the method ,Marxism is the dogma. Gramsci was perhaps more subtle than the use of the Gulag ;but his desired result was the same .He probably is the godfather of the Fabians and the American revolutionary progressives like Alinsky .
They want the "slaves "... sheeple whatever to believe they are still loyal to the old system while they are systematically stripped of that loyalty.
In both government and the education system ,and sprinkled throughout the society , you find increasingly that the bureaucrats are the power . That is because the already indoctinated have begun the "long march through the institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious."
These bureaucrats are the "elites " referenced in this op.

In the context of the class room indoctination is the method ,Marxism is the dogma. Gramsci was perhaps more subtle than the use of the Gulag ;but his desired end result was the same .He probably is the godfather of the Fabians and the American revolutionary progressives like Alinsky .
They want the "slaves " ...sheeple whatever to believe they are still loyal to the old system while they are systematically stripped of that loyalty.
In both government and the education system ,and sprinkled throughout the society , you find increasingly that the bureaucrats are the power . That is because the already indoctinated have begun the "long march through the institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious."
These bureaucrats are the "elites " referenced in this op.

Hi again Tom,

I can see you line of reasoning here but I have a few problems with a couple of terms used.

From my point of view Marxism is a very misunderstood . As you probably know there has never been the revolution that Marx wanted. There are and have been governments that call and have called themselves Marxist, but that doesn't make them them Marxist. Strictly speaking there can't be a Marxist bureaucracy. Because according to Marx; the state will wither away.

"long March through institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious"

I am not sure how to understand 'relativism' in the context of this sentence.


Regards

Tut

Tut ,utopia is never achieved . The conflict among the faithful has been the means to the end.

Relativism... The means to erode the values of a society is to teach values are subjective ,relative .Once that is done, it becomes easier to replace a set of values with another set. The process is to deconstruct (or as Gramsci called it "demystify") and then reconstruct. This is to be done primarily in the class room where what he called "organic intellectuals "replaces "traditional intellectuals " . What is taught to the student is that traditional democratic ideals are the same as the goals of Marx .

Tut ,utopia is never achieved . The conflict among the faithful has been the means to the end.

Relativism ... The means to erode the values of a society is to teach values are subjective ,relative .Once that is done, it becomes easier to replace a set of values with another set. The process is to deconstruct (or as Gramsci called it "demystify") and then reconstruct. This is to be done primarily in the class room where what he called "organic intellectuals "replaces "traditional intellectuals " . What is taught to the student is that traditional democratic ideals are the same as the goals of Marx .


Hi Tom,

Yes, Marxism is an utopian theory.

Gramsci might have though he was a Marxist, but he wasn't.

Marx did not have a goal as such. The goals that were to be achieved were the goals of history. In other words, the inevitable movement towards an end was seen as 'a natural process' of history.

Gramsci may have been a relativist but as to whether Marx himself was a relativist? Highly debatable.


Regards

Tut

Accordingly it is the natural course of history. From the primitive communal,to slave,to feudal,to capitalist, and,inevidibly the socialist and communist phases which are not man made events, but the natural evolution of humans .
Of course there is no steering towards the end of history.

There are a whole bunch of Marxist who are not Marxist then. Perhaps Orwell's pigs are not in the Marx playbook either . But they always end up leading Communist nations .

You mean the so called "educated" people.

The ones that try to teach revisionists history which is nothing but left wing propaganda, and push a liberal agenda while education levels of our children decreases year by year.

Like how they try to teach that ancient Egyptians were Blacks (totally without any proof DNA or otherwise), and not otherwise just because they have an agenda to push and damned if they will let the facts get in the way. After all, the NEA believes it's there to indoctrinate the children into socialism... not to actually educate them.

How the Liberals think they are more or better educated is dumbfounding since they cling to beliefs and party dogma and ignore reality and facts when they conflict with party propaganda.

...they cling to beliefs and party dogma and ignore reality and facts when they conflict with party propaganda.I'm pretty sure you just described the staunch conservatives there.

You mean the so called "educated" people.

The ones that try to teach revisionists history
Aren't the Texas conservatives doing that by approving a curriculum that puts a religiously, politically and ideologically conservative mark (i.e. white supremacy) on history and other textbooks?

I'm pretty sure you just described the staunch conservatives there.

I described the entire Democrtat party and the left wing media.

They never let facts get in their way.

They never let facts get in their way.Nor do the raging mad right-wings pundits here. LOL!

Aren't the Texas conservatives doing that by approving a curriculum that puts a religiously, politically and ideologically conservative mark (i.e., white supremacy) on history and other textbooks?

As opposed to what is in the textbooks now? Put there by liberals with no concern for the facts?

As opposed to what is in the textbooks now? Put there by liberals with no concern for the facts?
At least some of us will miss learning about Thomas Jefferson (the historical figure, not my deceased cat).

As opposed to what is in the textbooks now? Put there by liberals with no concern for the facts?Hello again, smoothy:

I'll bet you'd have NO trouble recasting the civil war, from a fight over slavery, to a war over states rights, wouldn't you? But, that ISN'T what happened.

excon

Aren't the Texas conservatives doing that by approving a curriculum that puts a religiously, politically and ideologically conservative mark (i.e., white supremacy) on history and other textbooks?
This must be the sequel... 'What's the matter with Texas ' .

That is not what happened there .


At least some of us will miss learning about Thomas Jefferson (the historical figure, not my deceased cat).
The only removal of Jefferson was a revison that had called him an enlightenment thinker .They modified it to say that Jefferson was someone influences by the enlightenment . That made it more historically accurate . Jefferson was NOT an enlightenment philosopher . In the rest of the text Jefferson is given his proper due.

Actually ,come to think about it ;this appreciation of Jeffersonianism by the left is intriguing . I wonder what Jefferson's position of central government control of education by elites over local interests would be ?

Hello again, smoothy:

I'll bet you'd have NO trouble recasting the civil war, from a fight over slavery, to a war over states rights, wouldn't you? But, that ISN'T what happened.

excon

That's what you want it to be... because it wasn't about slavery... revisionist history WANT'S it to be purely about that... there is no proof to back that up however.

It was a part of it,. but it wasn't purely about it like you want it to be.

But like the left does... ignore the facts and try to preach propaganda... or make history books into works of fiction. Then argue... its in the book, after they wrote the book.

Every other cause I've heard can be traced directly back to the slavery issue. It was the one irreconciable dispute in the early Republic. Compromises inside the Constitution and subsequent compromises only put bandaids on the fissure.

Every other cause I've heard can be traced directly back to the slavery issue. It was the one irreconciable dispute in the early Republic. Compromises inside the Constitution and subsequent compromises only put bandaids on the fissure.

Oh it was part of it... but indirectly... not the sole reason for it.

That does make a huge difference. The north tried to outlaw it... not because they gave a damn about the slaves... but to put the screws on the south. And it instigated other factors that lead to the South Seceding and sparking the war.

Not because of the Norths Moral superiority or Slavery would not have been allowed as long as it was. In fact if it was over Moral reasons... it would NEVER have been allowed from the beginning.

I did not make any reference to the moral superiority of the North .I'm well aware of the economic differences between the regions. Still ,slavery was the common denominator that tied all the causes together .

This must be the sequel... 'What's the matter with Texas ' .

That is not what happened there .


The only removal of Jefferson was a revison that had called him an enlightenment thinker .They modified it to say that Jefferson was someone influences by the enlightenment . That made it more historically accurate . Jefferson was NOT an enlightenment philosopher . In the rest of the text Jefferson is given his proper due.

Actually ,come to think about it ;this appreciation of Jeffersonianism by the left is intriguing . I wonder what Jefferson's position of central government control of education by elites over local interests would be ?


I find it interesting that no one looks to see what the smart people do with their texts . The State Board of Education of California is just as influential in determining the nation's texts as Texas. They are bland p.c. and very much display a bias towards the progressive agenda. According to a text publisher ,No textbook can show African Americans playing sports, Asians using computers, or women taking care of children.
http://greatbooksblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/a-textbook-example-of-what's-wrong-with-education-a-former-schoolbook-editor-parses-the-politics-of-educational-publishing/

I realize of course that these images can be stereotypical. But they are far from negative stereotypes and there is certainly no dishonor in these activities. The reality is that there are women in the work force and women who stay home and raise children . There are African-Americans who participate in many professions ,and African-Americans who play sports . Why mandate this exclusion ? I suspect a lot of it has to do with the discussion I've had with Tut on this topic... the process of tear down and reconstruct.


The American Textbook council wrote an essay that is quite revealing on the issues of this OP... who wants to keep the masses stupid ?Who are the cadres ?


In today's eighth-grade American histories literary quality and episodic description take a plunge. These stand in contrast to John Garraty's excellent The Story of America, introduced in California in 1991 and now out of print. California has now adopted the text-light, picture-captioned eighth-grade textbook, American Nation, from Prentice Hall, full of boxes and white space, a book that commands a huge share of the market nationwide.

In 2005 California adopted virtually every book that came to the table, including some shockingly dumbed down and biased volumes. Now the books are established in classrooms.
American Textbook Council - California Update (http://www.historytextbooks.org/california.htm)

I did not make any reference to the moral superiority of the North .I'm well aware of the economic differences between the regions. Still ,slavery was the common denominator that tied all the causes together .I agree... and a modern equivalent would be, say, someone got ticked off with the Construction Industry (or Food service, or a lot of retail)for whatever particular reason... and as retribution singled them out to make sure they never, ever used Illegal day labor.

Because if you know anyone in the industry at all, you can't run a jobsite without being fluent in spanish. As late as 25 years ago it was a decent paying respectible blue collar job that an American could raise a family on and provide a decent lifestyle.

Today, wages are lower than they were 25 years ago even before making allowances for inflation, because of the numbers of illegal and day labor being paid a fraction of what was paid to legal US citizens. And is so prevalent that you can't hire legal crews and pay a fair wage while remaining competitive.

The Industrial north essentually worked to cut off the labor intensive agricultural souths cheap labor as payback.

Taken into perspective... todays illegal worker problem isn't that far removed from events that led to the Civil war. Common sense it to toss them out, after all the law requires just that... but interests that depend on the cheap labor have politicians in their pocket bought and paid for defending their practice. Not unlike the old south and slavery.

And if you give it some thought... it ISN'T much of a stretch.

Today, wages are lower than they were 25 years ago even before making allowances for inflation, because of the numbers of illegal and day labor being paid a fraction of what was paid to legal US citizens. And is so prevalent that you can't hire legal crews and pay a fair wage while remaining competitive.
The obvious solution is to severely penalize the employers who hire undocumented workers and pay them low wages that undercut the standard and reasonable.

The obvious solution is to severely penalize the employers who hire undocumented workers and pay them low wages that undercut the standard and reasonable.

How about penalizing the people that broke the law violating our borders. The Illegals themselves.

That's not much different than arresting the sotore clerk for having marked money from a bank robbery, but letting the bank robbers that stole the money go free.

Many of the illegals after all have fake (forged) papers with stolen or invalid SSN's that may appear valid to employers that don't have the ability to verify them,

Incidentally... the illegals that use these are also guilty of Identity theft, besides the other laws they broke. They are far from innocent.

Not all illegals are obviously illegal to the employer.

I don't have a problem going after employers as well, that obviously do not have the required papers for each employee. And THAT is not the case in a good many.

The Illegals in many cases provide the required papers, they just aren't real... could YOU spot a real from fake green card? And How. Unless you work with them daily, and even then its not a sure thing... I know I couldn't.

Some employers get duped... not all, but enough do.

How about penalizing the people that broke the law violating our borders.
If there were no cushy jobs (harvesting crops in Arizona and Texas heat, running the dishwasher at the back of a hot restaurant kitchen, etc.) with money handed to them under the table, the illegals would not come.

If there were no cushy jobs (harvesting crops in Arizona and Texas heat, running the dishwasher at the back of a hot restaurant kitchen, etc.) with money handed to them under the table, the illegals would not come.

You have some very real misconceptions about illegals.

I know several employers (Personal friends of mine) that got notified of having multiple employees using other peoples SSN's after years of them working there, having taxes taken out, etc.. before they found out. Many had outstayed expired H-1B visas, or Visas to attend college, not work.

All illegals aren't Latino... not all illegals barely speak english... and not all illegals are poorly eductated. And MOST IMPORTANT, not all illegals hold menial labor jobs.

I've seen companies that had illegal computer programmers and engineers working that got caught and deported. Some were Indian, some were East European as examples.

Many of the illegals after all have fake (forged) papers with stolen or invalid SSN's that may appear valid to employers that don't have the ability to verify them, Hello again, smoothy:

You'd think that in these days of Patriot Act invasions, that employers in this country would be able to identify exactly WHO is applying... And, they could too, if we had a national ID card. But, conservatives don't want to do that... I don't know why..

Hmmm... I wonder if it has to do with giving COVER to their ILLEGAL HIRING practices, like you just did. Nahhh... They wouldn't do that, would they?

excon

All illegals aren't Latino....not all illegals barely speak english.....and not all illegals are poorly eductated. And MOST IMPORTANT, not all illegals hold menial labor jobs.
True, but the majority are and do.

Hello again, smoothy:

You'd think that in these days of Patriot Act invasions, that employers in this country would be able to identify exactly WHO is applying.... And, they could too, if we had a national ID card. But, conservatives don't wanna do that... I dunno why..

Hmmm.... I wonder if it has to do with giving COVER to their ILLEGAL HIRING practices, like you just did. Nahhh... They wouldn't do that, would they?

exconReally any proof of THAT claim...


It was the Democrats that were screaming about NOT having a national Id Card when it came up under Bush.


And Besides... 19 months now Democrats have been in the White house, and held Majorities in the House and Senate... exactly WHAT was stopping them from doing it if it's a cause they support?

True, but the majority are and do.

Doesn't matter. Latinos aren't either an endangered species or a protected class.

There are no civil wars in latino countries at this time... and there are no ongoing famins or Genocides. There is NO excuse for not staying in their homeland until they get legal permission to come here the right way. Brown, black, white or yellow. It applies to everyone.

There are no civil wars in latino countries at this time
The drug wars in Mexico?

Really any proof of THAT claim...Hello again, smoothy:

You should know by now that I don't guess about the stuff I say. If I say it, you can take it to the bank!

The Democrats' immigration-reform proposal (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/Conceptual%20Outline%20of%202010%20Bill%20%28R-S-M%29.pdf) is 26 pages long. Pages 8 through 18 are devoted to "ending illegal employment through biometric employment verification." I don't think the Democrats are going to like me calling this a biometric national ID card, as they go to great lengths to say that it is not a national ID card, but it is.

Uhhhh, the Republicans didn't support this bill, or it would BE the law, and you couldn't whine anymore.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

You should know by now that I don't guess about the stuff I say. If I say it, you can take it to the bank!

The Democrats' immigration-reform proposal (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/Conceptual%20Outline%20of%202010%20Bill%20%28R-S-M%29.pdf) is 26 pages long. Pages 8 through 18 are devoted to "ending illegal employment through biometric employment verification." I don't think the Democrats are going to like me calling this a biometric national ID card, as they go to great lengths to say that it is not a national ID card, but it is.

Uhhhh, the Republicans didn't support this bill, or it would BE the law, and you couldn't whine anymore.

exconSo, explain the Democrats opposition of a national ID card when Bush Proposed it.

Coalition letter to President Bush Urging Him to Reject National ID Card | American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/coalition-letter-president-bush-urging-him-reject-national-id-card)

Dated 2002.. 8 years ago... and the negativity from the left, and look at the list of Liberals opposing it when Bush first suggested it. Funny how certain democrats will jump on the Obama bandwagon when the Messiah proposses it, yet fought against the very same thing only several years earlier under Bush.

The drug wars in Mexico?

But the Drug dealers and users are such nice people they (the liberals) want to incorporate them into our economy.

So... they can't go south in their own country...


And besides... lame excuse since so many AREN'T Mexican to begin with.

And besides....lame excuse since so many AREN'T Mexican to begin with.
And what are they?

So, explain the Democrats opposition of a national ID card when Bush Proposed it.Hello again, smoothy:

I don't know. How about they opposed it because they opposed EVERYTHING Bush put on the table (except the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, torture, and stuff like that), EVEN legislation they liked simply because of WHO was proposing it?? Exactly like the Republicans are doing now...

What?? You think, that I think the Democrats are great governors and leaders?? Hmmm. You really haven't read much of my stuff, have you?

excon

And what are they?

Look on a map... Mexico doesn't encompass everything between Texas and Antartica. Most of the Illegals come from the northern half of South America, and the entirety of Central America on top of Mexico, and most come Through mexico doing it.

Want to see hypocrisy... Look at Mexicos laws about Illegals... then listen to Calderone harping about us not having open borders.

Hello again, smoothy:

I dunno. How about they opposed it because they opposed EVERYTHING Bush put on the table (except the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, torture, and stuff like that), EVEN legislation they liked simply because of WHO was proposing it??? Exactly like the Republicans are doing now....

What??? You think, that I think the Democrats are great governors and leaders??? Hmmm. You really haven't read much of my stuff, have you?

excon

Well, Obama didn't support the Surge in Iraq... Harry Ried was saying it didn't work and the war was lost... before the surge ever started... and tries to take credit for it just the same.

But heck... we all know the Democrats mindset... They Hated every good idea and good thing George Bush had and did... but they would cheerfully support Obama shreading the Constitution, just because the Messiah was doing it. They would even think the very same things were a good Idea if Obama suggested it even when they fought the very same things when Bush suggested them.


Personally, I think the right national ID would be good... and prevent voter fraud in Democrat disticts.

But I know the democrats, and they would set up a table at the border and give the ID's to every illegal that crossed the border eliminating any possible good it would achieve. And essentually make it worthless.

I would hardly call an outline entitled 'Conceptual Proposal for Immigration Reform'.. "legislation". This is not even in committee for consideration.

The biometric SS card is not a new idea . It has been on the table for years. It is silly to say that Republicans are against it because they oppose the comprehensive reform ideas the Democrats make. All I had to do is read the 1st page ,with the Democrats paying lip service to border security to know how phony this is . They are sly... I'll give them that much . In an election year where John McCain has suddenly found the merits of border security ;they added language in this blue print that he would have a hard time objecting to. His Democrat opponent will use the same political argument that Excon just used.. . if you oppose this proposal it must then be true that you oppose border security (or biomatrix id cards etc. ).
These proposals will never see the light of day in Democrat sponsored lmmigration reform legislation.

You think I'm wrong ? This phony proposal calls for drones to patrol the border . You really think the Dems want that ? The proposal gives DHS the authority to deploy the National Guard for border patrol . That's a Dem idea ? Lol

It is not a serious proposal and I suspect Excon is well aware of that.

Well, whatever happens... Obama will Blame it on Bush... and the democrats won't hold the new title holder "The Teflon Don" responsible for anything he does on his watch, under his authority. Been 19 months so far... only 25 more to go... why start accepting responsibility now...

You think I'm wrong ? This phony proposal calls for drones to patrol the border . You really think the Dems want that ? The proposal gives DHS the authority to deploy the National Guard for border patrol . That's a Dem idea ? lol

It is not a serious proposal and I suspect Excon is well aware of that.Hello again, tom:

Certainly I think you're wrong.. Maybe my eyes were deceiving me, but I believe Obama LAUNCHED a drone on the border YESTERDAY... Something you say the Dems DON'T want, and won't DO... Whadya know about that?

excon

Well how about that?! Are they armed ? We could have an 'Alien versus Predator' sequel .

wrong premise . When she speaks of the elites ,she speaks of progressive,liberal ,Washington DC ,or Hollywood elites. She is not refering to their level of education.

It is these "elites" she is refering to who think the people who do things like attend tea party rallies or oppose the progressive agenda are the uneducated ya-hoos.

They even wrote a book about the stupid people who don't see things their way.
'What's the Matter with Kansas?' tries to explain the ignorant folks who ,according to the author vote ,against their own self interest .
The elite progressives creamed when they read this because it affirmed all their misconceptions about the people in "flyover country".
It was on the bible of the elites ;the NY Slimes best seller's list for 18 weeks .

Like you ,the author of this book presumes that the unwashed masses are led like sheeple because they are too stupid to weigh the benefits of the opposing positions and come to conclusions on their own.

The obvious flaws in your thesis is that overwhelmingly the poorer less educated people of this country tend to support the liberals agenda of a government nanny-state.It is the progressives who have a stake in keeping the poor and uneducated ignorant. It is this group that they count on as a voting block.

Further ,the underlying assumption that it is manipulation of social issues that keeps us dummies stirred up is false. The tea party movement has been almost totally an economic revolt against a government that thinks everyone has a bottomless pocket.It is resistance to the expansion of government power, and intrusiveness.It is the national debt fueled by out of control spending that has fueled this movement.

And how have the "elites " those people you think are educated responded ? They are contemptuous of people who disagree with them . Tea party supporters are called tea-baggers .A legitimate grass roots movement is disparaged as "astro-turf". We are racists for not going along with the radical agenda of the President. We are nativists because we think the government should control illegal immigration . We are homophobic for opposing a radical redefinition of marriage .And now our phobias have extended to Muslims because we think it's a bad idea to build a towering mosque over the WTC site .

We the "bitter clingers" (Obama's words to a gathering of wine and brie "educated elites "in San Fran) are a bunch of Know-nothings according to Timothy Egan of the NY Slimes.

It is the progressives in this country who think that the masses are insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an aristocracy of educated(leftist) elites.

YEAH! tomder55 for president so's us poor unedjemacated idiots can have someone who ain't all upity upity and stuff. Them upity upity folks think they poop don't stink!
Right on tomder55.

Where is science and civics kept out the classroom? Where is religion being brought into the classroom? Not around here. Oh wait, maybe I think that because I am not the "elite" but rather the "common sense" variety of citizen.

When my son was in high and in biology class, my (now ex) husband and I went to talk to the teacher and ask if the opposing theory of evolution could be introduced in the classroom (that being creationism) and she said no. If we wanted that taught, we were (and did) to do that at home.

This garbage about elite versus uneducated has been going on hundreds of years already. I do not deny that is occurs. It's the way to make the other look better than they really are. I went to college where plenty of silver-spooned young adults attended and were insufferable. If anything, they loved to throw that "better than you" around. I always remembered what my Dad taught me - they all have to sit on the toilet the same way.

Where is science and civics kept out the classroom? Where is religion being brought into the classroom?

When my son was in high and in biology class, my (now ex) husband and I went to talk to the teacher and ask if the opposing theory of evolution could be introduced in the classroom (that being creationism) and she said no. Hello bleu:

If it's not around there, it's because you FAILED at your mission. However, SOME parents have been successful at bringing creationism into the classroom, like you TRIED to do, and it's THOSE classes in particular that I'm referring to..

excon

What is this "elite" american type that you guys refer to? I never got that. Anyone have a good definition for me?

What is this "elite" american type that you guys refer to? I never got that. Anyone have a good definition for me?Hello NK:

It's the educated. I don't use the term because I'M educated and I certainly don't think I'm elite. Otherwise I would have picked a more elite name. But, I suppose I could be wrong. I think bluesong described it pretty well. There's the elite, and there the common sense folks.

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with education.

excon

The common sense folks are the ones the elites think are stupid because they don't buy into the Gramscian indoctrination that passes as public education.

I've never seen the "elites" call common sense people stupid, where has this happened?
I wasn't aware that your educational system was so terrible. That explains many of the posts on this board.LOL!

I've never seen the "elites" call common sense people stupid, where has this happened?
I posted an example on comment #2

I posted an example on comment #2So I researched the book on Amazon and got to its page: Amazon.com: What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (9780805077742): Thomas Frank: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284448037&sr=8-1)
So is that what happens when someone writes a critical view of the constituents of your party? It makes you go into attack mode and you feel the need to label anyone who might have enjoyed the book as a group that should be reviled for being educated? A bit thin-skinned, no?
The book has 4 stars based on nearly 400 reviews, does that mean you now view Amazon as a bastion of elite progressive? Damn those people that read, they are a threat to you.

Oh wait, one can find many conservative books that are critical too:
Amazon.com: Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies (9781596986206): Michelle Malkin: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Corruption-Cheats-Crooks-Cronies/dp/1596986204/ref=pd_sim_b_5)
Amazon.com: Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda (9780062003058): Sean Hannity: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Victory-Defeating-Obamas-Radical/dp/0062003054/ref=pd_sim_b_4) "The "candidate of change" is threatening to change our country irreparably, and for the worse—if we don't act to stop him now."
Amazon.com: To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine (9781596985964): Newt Gingrich: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Save-America-Stopping-Secular-Socialist-Machine/dp/1596985968/ref=pd_sim_b_4) "Exposing the mortal threat now facing America"
Republicans doing what republicans do - fear mongering and creating divisiveness. And your reaction to the Kansas Conservatives book is to revel in your lack of education. I'm not sure that's a healthy reaction, it will have unintended consequences that won't benefit your country.

NK,

I don't know if you've seen Prof. Codevilla's article. It describes these "elites."

The American Spectator : America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print)

And your reaction to the Kansas Conservatives book is to revel in your lack of education. I'm not sure that's a healthy reaction, it will have unintended consequences that won't benefit your country.
You are mistaking elitist attitudes with reality . It is their perception that we are a mass of rubes I am critiquing. Most major Republican in the last 30 years have been smeared with the label 'stupid' . The strange dicotomy is that they also get tagged as manipulative evil geniouses.

Interesting article. Did you read all of it? The author takes amazing leaps of logic and makes interesting assumptions without facts to back it up. It basically reads like a Tea Party Manifesto.
It seems the word "elite" is being hijacked for party purposes. The definition (Elite - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elite)) should not be politically motivated since there are people from both parties that fit the description - don't you agree?

It is their perception that we are a mass of rubes I am critiquing.Who? Who is this group of people that call you a mass of rubes?


Most major Republican in the last 30 years have been smeared with the label 'stupid' . Have you not read smoothy posts? Your fellow conservatives calls liberals much worse things repeatedly.

Smoothy is entitled to his own opinions with or without my endorsement . Where I have disagreed with him I have not been silent .

Why don't you stick to the things I call liberals ? This isn't about our name calling .

This thread calls out Palin for using the terms 'elite' and Excon made the leap to connect it to people's education. It is that perception I have been addressing.

The charge is made that Republicans want to keep the populace dumb ,and I counter that the indoctination that begins in the education system and in 'popular culture' is rigged by the 'elites' to favor the 'liberal' viewpoint. What conservative backlash you see is reaction to that.

So if people stayed out of the education system they'd be smarter because they would be less liberal?

there are people from both parties that fit the description - don't you agree?

This much I'll agree with. I'd much prefer Franklin's "Citizen statesman" that goes to Congress for one term, unpaid by anybody, and returns home. The professional politicians and their diplomat cronies are the prime but not the only "elitist" offenders.

One of the biggest growth industries in this country is private tutoring . Even in this economic environment people are willing to shell out additional money to try to make up for the poor education the public system provides. Another trend is the increased use of home schooling as an option.

None of this would be happening if the public system was providing a quality product.

None of this would be happening if the public system was providing a quality product.Hello again, tom:

Which brings us back to the beginning... Bleusong was singing your tune... YOU view a quality educational product as one that equates creationism with evolution... In MY view, that dumbs down the students, not the other way around..

In terms of civics, our most recent discussions should tell you that MOST Americans don't understand the Constitution... As an example, the oath of office says that a presidents FIRST duty is to "preserve, protect, and defend the CONSTITUTION". Most Americans think a presidents FIRST duty is to protect the country...

That's a MAJOR misunderstanding, and I mean MAJOR! I don't know WHERE it comes from. You, yourself, tom, don't agree with that assessment... To this day, I don't know why.

excon

Before the stuff about the defending the Constitution the President swears to 'faithfully execute' the office .

Article 2 Sec 2 defines the 1st and foremost duty of the President .The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Article 2 is no where's as specific as the enumerated powers in Article 1 .However the writings of the founders made it clear that to defend the country was to defend the Constitution. If you disagree with that then you disagree with every President since Washington.

However the writings of the founders made it clear that to defend the country was to defend the Constitution. If you disagree with that then you disagree with every President since Washington.Hello again, tom:

I don't mind disagreeing with them, IF I am... To me, it's clear that defending the Constitution DOES defend the country... If you did OTHER stuff first, you'd find yourself doing UNCONSTITUTIONAL things like torture, kidnapping, and black sites.. Then, of course, you'd have to do some Constitutional jury rigging to make that stuff OK...

Nahhh... I'm right, and you're wrong.. I got MY Constitutional viewpoint in 8th grade and it hasn't left me. Do you think that viewpoint is "elite"?

excon

It's OK to have your viewpoint . I have history on my side.Unless every President has violated that oath then your viewpoint doesn't agree with the historical record . Mt Rushmore honors some of the worse offenders.

Hello again, tom:

Here's another viewpoint... This country is going to elect an uneducated fool to the presidency, who thinks she can see Russia from her house. Then we'll have some fun - if we survive the wars she's going to start.

excon

most major republican in the last 30 years have been smeared with the label 'stupid' . The strange dicotomy is that they also get tagged as manipulative evil geniouses.


#87

Thomas Wolfe ;author of 'The Right Stuff' and other novels has explored American culture his whole life.
His commencement address to the Boston University Class of 2000 says it better than anything I've read on the subject yet.

I'll quote some and link the rest .


The truth is that there is a common bond among all cultures, among all peoples in this world... at least among those who have reached the level of the wheel, the shoe, and the toothbrush. And that common bond is that much-maligned class known as the bourgeoisie—the middle class.. . and wherever they are, all of them believe in the same things. And what are those things? Peace, order, education, hard work, initiative, enterprise, creativity, cooperation, looking out for one another, looking out for the future of children, patriotism, fair play, and honesty. How much more do you want from the human beast? How much more can you possibly expect?.

And we writers spent the entire 20th century tearing down the bourgeoisie! The great H.L. Mencken, probably the most brilliant American essayist of the 20th century, started it with his term "the booboisie." Then Sherwood Anderson in Winesburg, Ohio presented us with the oh-so proper, oh-so twisted mid-western preacher who in fact is a Peeping Tom. That formula has now been ground out and ground out and ground out until it takes the form of movies like "American Beauty." We in the arts have been complicit in the denigration of the best people on earth. Why? Because so many of the most influential ideas of our time are the product of a new creature of the 20th century, a creature that did not exist until 1898: and that creature is known as "the intellectual."

Now, we must be careful to make a distinction between the intellectual and the person of intellectual achievement. The two are very very different animals. There are people of intellectual achievement, who increase the sum of human knowledge, the powers of human insight, and analysis. And then there are the intellectuals. An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out only in others. Starting in the early 20th century, for the first time an ordinary story teller, a novelist, a short story writer, a poet, a playwright, in certain cases a composer, an artist, or even an opera singer could achieve a tremendous eminence by becoming morally indignant about some public issue. It required no intellectual effort whatsoever. Suddenly he was elevated to a plane from which he could look down upon ordinary people.
Tom Wolfe Commencement Address (http://www.101bananas.com/library2/wolfe.html)

"The booboisie" as Mencken described them were the general public composed of uneducated, uncultured persons.
Urban Dictionary: booboisie t-shirts, mugs and magnets (http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?term=booboisie&defid=2211723)

I did not know the word until today .But a quick net search reveals that the common folk are still mocked with that word by lefty journalists.

You speak of Palin the rube and champion of the rube . Meanwhile ,the President has surrounded himself with the intellectual elites who never stray far from the Ivory Towers. They think a lot but have no practical experiences to apply their thoughts to.

Take Geithner as an example. He will survive the purge coming . Here is a guy with all the great economic ideas who can't figure out Turbo-tax(that's giving him the benefit of the doubt in lieu of charging that he is a tax cheat) .


These theorists remind me of a guy jumping out of a plane without a parachute who says "But we are heading in the right direction" .
I'll gladly take my chances with Palin (although I doubt she will get the nomination) .

Hello again, tom:

Here's another viewpoint... This country is going to elect an uneducated fool to the presidency, who thinks she can see Russia from her house. Then we'll have some fun - if we survive the wars she's gonna start.

excon

We have an uneducated fool in the Whitehouse right now that doesn't understand basic economics... Can't do any worse than we have now.

Having attended a school means absolutely nothing... nobody has seen his grades yet. THey are a national secret... oooooooooooo.

Obama said his father was a WW2 veteran... and its proved his step fathers were WAY too young and his real father couldn't have been.

Want to talk about a slip of a tongue and a metaphore... Sarah might not have LITERALLY seen Russia, but off Alaskan waters Russian waters DO border effectively them, what countrie swaters are between the USA and Russia off Alaska anyway? Unlike there being no possible way to explain that Ombame open mouth insert foot moment... and it wasn't his first flub.



Here is an Obama Classic.. He has visited all 57 states...

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon (Watch video clip) http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobamavideos/youtube/obama-57-states.htm

Big long list of other really stupid comments by Obama himself, the "Smartest President we ever had"... many with video links
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm

Excon,
Have you read Claudia Dreifus' book, "Higher Education? How Colleges are Wasting Our Money and Failing Our Kids - and What We Can do About It"?

There is an article about her book, an interview done with Claudia in More.com magazine - here is the web link:

Is College Worth the Cash? - MORE Magazine (http://www.more.com/2050/22280-is-college-worth-the-cash)

And yet another member of the 'elites' calls the rubes 'stupid' .


A testy U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday blamed clueless voters with short attention spans for the uphill battle beleaguered Democrats are facing against Republicans across the nation.

"We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening," Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.
John Kerry: Democrats’ woes stem from uninformed voters - BostonHerald.com (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1284069)

Kerry is absolutely correct.

You and he both have it backward. The reason for the Dems problems is that voters have informed themselves about the flim flam hopenchange canard. What he meant was that voters in the past have had lives and did not necessarily pay attention to the Dem schemes...

Or maybe he was making commentary on the 2008 voters .

No, you have it wrong. We are constantly being assaulted by RNC/righty/Fox News slogans and catchphrases that get repeated as nauseum hoping that people believe them without doing any research.

Hello again,

I got to tell you... I haven't heard any interviews with tea partiers, or their candidates that reflects a basic understanding of the issues of the day.

I DO see them reflect what they've HEARD on right wing radio and TV, however.

Glenn Beck just did a show about Nazis and compared it to the Obama administration. Is it any wonder people show up with signs of Obama as a Nazi?? That doesn't come from knowing the issues... Nope. It comes from ignorance, with a little bigotry thrown in...

excon

If that Beck guy called President Obama a deer in the headlights, guess what would be pictured on signs the next time.

I got to tell you... I haven't heard any interviews with tea partiers, or their candidates that reflects a basic understanding of the issues of the day.


That will be the whine of all the former Representatives in November .

No, you have it wrong. We are constantly being assaulted by RNC/righty/Fox News slogans and catchphrases that get repeated as nauseum hoping that people believe them without doing any research.

As opposed to the Pro-Democrat propaganda and covereage the left chooses to not report on? And the scripted comments the entire left wing news that gerts regurgitated on a daily basis, that are blieves and excused by the entire left without THEM doing one iota of research.

As one examply of what the left is burying was the refusal of the Obama administration to prosecute the black Panthers caught on video outside a voting site in Philladelphia, with weapons intimidating white voter with threats that were clearly caught on video and audio...

Yeah we see that all over the liberal news... if it was the KKK doing it on the other hand that's ALLyou would see on the news. ANd if it was being covered up by a Republican the Democrats would be calling for an impeachment and legal charges being filed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/24/voting-rights-official-calls-black-panther-dismissal-travesty-justice/

And the whistle blower for this is an ex ACLU lawyer NOT a republican... and Obama and his minions are up to their scrawny necks in this...

Hello again,

I got to tell you... I haven't heard any interviews with tea partiers, or their candidates that reflects a basic understanding of the issues of the day.

I DO see them reflect what they've HEARD on right wing radio and TV, however.

Glenn Beck just did a show about Nazis and compared it to the Obama administration. Is it any wonder people show up with signs of Obama as a Nazi?? That doesn't come from knowing the issues... Nope. It comes from ignorance, with a little bigotry thrown in...

Excon


"We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening,"

"change we can believe in"... "hope and change "... "yes we can"

"change we can believe in" ...."hope and change "..."yes we can"Hello again, tom:

It's certainly nicer than "HELL NO we can't", "death panels", and "I want my country back", from presumably "others" who have it now. Nope. Your message sucks.

excon

"change we can believe in" ...."hope and change "..."yes we can"
Yes, those are campaign slogans that end once the campaign is done.

As opposed to:
Tea Party Slogans Repository - We're As Mad As Hell and We're Not Going to Take It Anymore! (http://www.teapartyslogans.com/cgi-bin/web/index.cgi)
The 50 Most Ridiculous Tea Party Slogans - Eyes On Obama (http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_51507/title_The-50-Most-Ridiculous-Tea-Party-Slogans/)

It's certainly nicer than "HELL NO we can't", "death panels", and "I want my country back", from presumably "others" who have it now. Nope. Your message sucks.

I don't know anyone spouting "HELL NO we can't" or "death panels" as a slogan. But since we're comparing, "F**k Tea (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/Dem_group_launches_Fck_Tea_campaign.html)," "Republicans want you to die quickly" (Alan Grayson) and "Dude, Where's My Country?" (Michael Moore) sucks, too.

Yes, we know, everyone sucks.

Yes, we know, everyone sucks.

Oh the drama. :rolleyes:

I don't know anyone spouting "HELL NO we can't"Hello again, Steve:

John Boehner, Hell NO we can't. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gPxZZBAwNY)

excon

Hello again, Steve:

John Boehner, [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gPxZZBAwNY"]Hell NO we can't. [/URL

Ex, at least someone was looking out for us:


“And look at how this bill was written. Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals, and struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people? Hell no, you can’t! Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager’s amendment? Hell no, you haven’t!

Afraid of the simple truth?