Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I truly don't believe that this is a serious question.
From my own view of national Republican politicians, I can think of a large number who meet your criteria that I would not call stupid, including Delay, Archer, Armey, Gingrich, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, George H.W. Bush, Alan Keyes, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Posner, Eugene Volokh, Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney, James Pinkerton, Ross Douthat. I could go on all day.
Most of those people, while not being stupid, are either hypocrites, intellectually dishonest, or simply mean-spirited and vicious, or a combination of those unattractive traits.
Moreover, my objection to their positions is not that they are stupid, but that , among other things, they universally favor the wealthy and powerful over the disadvantaged and the working people; they tend to demand a narrow orthodoxy in personal and religious values and seek to enshrine that orthodoxy in our laws and societal norms; and they oversimplify and misconstrue the forces at work in the world in ways that are likely to weaken, rather than strengthen, the place of the United States in the world.
Yeah, right. It's because there's hardly such a thing as a tolerant liberal. None of you are able to look past what you see as a belief in a "book of fairy tales," therefore us conservatives must be screwed up mentally. That's the gist of it, and you know it.
When you use phrases like, "None of you", it suggests that intolerance isn't just a liberal characteristic. I think that intolerance is nothing more than defensiveness when someone feels attacked. When we think we're under attack, then we slip very easily into a friend/enemy, black/white, right/wrong mindset. But that's not a realistic mindset. We all disagree with our friends about some things, and surprise ourselves when we acknowledge how much we have in common with people we oppose. We know the world is not black and white, that there's a full-color spectrum out there. We know that there are only a few absolutes when it comes to right and wrong, that our actions have a context.
I truly don't believe that this is a serious question.
From my own view of national Republican politicians, I can think of a large number who meet your criteria that I would not call stupid, including Delay, Archer, Armey, Gingrich, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, George H.W. Bush, Alan Keyes, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Posner, Eugene Volokh, Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney, James Pinkerton, Ross Douthat. I could go on all day.
Most of those people, while not being stupid, are either hypocrites, intellectually dishonest, or simply mean-spirited and vicious, or a combination of those unattractive traits.
Moreover, my objection to their positions is not that they are stupid, but that , among other things, they universally favor the wealthy and powerful over the disadvantaged and the working people; they tend to demand a narrow orthodoxy in personal and religious values and seek to enshrine that orthodoxy in our laws and societal norms; and they oversimplify and misconstrue the forces at work in the world in ways that are likely to weaken, rather than strengthen, the place of the United States in the world.
And after all that, can you tell us how liberal politicians are any different? I highly doubt you can illustrate that liberal politicians have accomplished anything remotely antithetical to the rhetoric you've posted here.
The only whim of difference is what you actually consider orthodox. Your orthodoxy does not follow along the traditional tagline of conservative ideals, but that doesn't mean that you don't "seek to enshrine that orthodoxy in our laws and societal norms."
I truly don't believe that this is a serious question.
From my own view of national Republican politicians, I can think of a large number who meet your criteria that I would not call stupid, including Delay, Archer, Armey, Gingrich, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, George H.W. Bush, Alan Keyes, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Posner, Eugene Volokh, Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney, James Pinkerton, Ross Douthat. I could go on all day.
Most of those people, while not being stupid, are either hypocrites, intellectually dishonest, or simply mean-spirited and vicious, or a combination of those unattractive traits.
Moreover, my objection to their positions is not that they are stupid, but that , among other things, they universally favor the wealthy and powerful over the disadvantaged and the working people; they tend to demand a narrow orthodoxy in personal and religious values and seek to enshrine that orthodoxy in our laws and societal norms; and they oversimplify and misconstrue the forces at work in the world in ways that are likely to weaken, rather than strengthen, the place of the United States in the world.
I agree. I have hardly ever seen any stupid politician (except for that one guy a couple of weeks ago who tried to explain something in a hearing and made a total fool of himself, don't remember his name). I guess successful people of either side tend to be good at words, which requires a certain amount of intelligence. But intelligence does not automatically bring about being right and good. Dictators are not stupid, either.
I remember a study in Germany years ago where they asked people to make associations between left/right and certain properties. Intelligence was clearly more often associated with left-wingers, while other properties such as economic competence was more often said to be typical of right-wing politicians.
Maybe in politics shrewd is a more appropriate word than intelligent
And after all that, can you tell us how liberal politicians are any different? I highly doubt you can illustrate that liberal politicians have accomplished anything remotely antithetical to the rhetoric you've posted here.
The only whim of difference is what you actually consider orthodox. Your orthodoxy does not follow along the traditional tagline of conservative ideals, but that doesn't mean that you don't "seek to enshrine that orthodoxy in our laws and societal norms."
Fancy verbiage. But you basically said nothing.
You're totally off topic. You have no way to refute anything I said, starting with my proof that the assumption of the original post was incorrect, so your only remaining tactic was to try to change the subject.
Go bleat somewhere else.
Name one pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, pro marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, pro smaller government politician or public figure who is also open about their faith/belief in God/Jesus that you do not think is "stupid." Thanks
Serious question or not... there were a bunch of answers given.
Libs win this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
