Quote:

---

Obama is out of touch and elitist.
Elitist? Yes of course he is, but not any more than the other candidates. As Brad Reed noted:

Is Barack Obama really an elitist as his opponents claim? Well of course he is—he’s running for president of the United States! He wouldn’t have gotten this far in life if he’d spent the past 20 years driving a truck or moonlighting as a fry cook at Arby’s. Like every other successful politician in the United States, Obama is a member of America’s political ruling class, which means that like every other presidential candidate in recent memory, he is typically insulated from the lives of ordinary people. Does Obama really have any idea what it’s like to live like a “Real American?” Of course he doesn’t, and neither do John McCain and Hillary Clinton! Does any rational person out there believe that Obama, Clinton and McCain spend their free time away from the campaign trail hanging out at Jimmy Ray’s Chicken’n'Beer Depot playing darts with the common folk?

In theory, this point should be fairly obvious. Even before getting elected, most politicians made a good deal of money in their careers as lawyers, doctors, actors or oil tycoons—you know, real salt-of-the-earth sort of work. But for reasons that have long confounded sane people everywhere, our national millionaire press corps gives positive coverage to political candidates who are the most adept at lying about their ability to connect with regular folks.

Yeah, Obama is worth about $1.3 million bucks. But the other two candidates who are falling over themselves to condemn him for being "out of touch" are worth $34.9 million (Clinton) and $40.4 million (McCain). Am I seriously supposed to take their criticisms seriously?

And the rest of the right wing media attacking Obama for being elitist are hardly any more in touch themselves—John Hindraker, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Bill ***** Kristol? These are not members of the elite themselves? Nick Bauman points out the double standard at work here:

The truth is that the right wing pronounces and the media repeats, with regularity, stupid, stereotypical slurs about large parts of American society, and no one blinks an eye. Trial lawyers, academics in their ivory towers, job-stealing illegal immigrants (with leprosy!), effete wine-drinking liberals, suburban soccer moms, granola-crunching environmentalists, and just about anyone within spitting range of "San Francisco values," are totally in-bounds for any sort of mockery the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world can cook up. But god forbid someone slur "Middle America."

Stereotyping bicoastal city-dwellers is totally fine. That's acceptable discourse. You can be "out of touch" with the 80 percent of the American population that lives in metro areas and their surrounding suburbs. In fact, it actually qualifies you to run for office. You’re down-to-earth, "real," and an "everyday guy" (or gal). Some casual stereotyping of and contempt for city dwellers and suburbanites is always welcomed. Their values and lifestyle choices and beliefs can and should be attacked. But while it's perfectly okay to hold and repeat outrageously offensive views about city folk and the values they hold dear, a city-born-and-bred man apparently can't reveal that he may hold some silly or stereotypical opinions about why small-town Americans believe what they believe. At least not if he wants to be president.


As an urban "coastal elite" myself (apparently, living in an overpriced apartment one step up from the ghetto makes me "elite"), that last one is what really stuck out of this whole "controversy" for me, this manufactured outrage by people who routinely insult broad swaths of Americans themselves.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

As far as the elitist accusations. Of course Obama is an elitist. He's a politician running for President. Just like McCain and Hillary who both need to wash their hands before pointing their elitist fingers. This about sums it up for me:

Quote:

---

Obama is out of touch and elitist.
Elitist? Yes of course he is, but not any more than the other candidates. As Brad Reed noted:

Is Barack Obama really an elitist as his opponents claim? Well of course he is—he’s running for president of the United States! He wouldn’t have gotten this far in life if he’d spent the past 20 years driving a truck or moonlighting as a fry cook at Arby’s. Like every other successful politician in the United States, Obama is a member of America’s political ruling class, which means that like every other presidential candidate in recent memory, he is typically insulated from the lives of ordinary people. Does Obama really have any idea what it’s like to live like a “Real American?” Of course he doesn’t, and neither do John McCain and Hillary Clinton! Does any rational person out there believe that Obama, Clinton and McCain spend their free time away from the campaign trail hanging out at Jimmy Ray’s Chicken’n'Beer Depot playing darts with the common folk?

In theory, this point should be fairly obvious. Even before getting elected, most politicians made a good deal of money in their careers as lawyers, doctors, actors or oil tycoons—you know, real salt-of-the-earth sort of work. But for reasons that have long confounded sane people everywhere, our national millionaire press corps gives positive coverage to political candidates who are the most adept at lying about their ability to connect with regular folks.

Yeah, Obama is worth about $1.3 million bucks. But the other two candidates who are falling over themselves to condemn him for being "out of touch" are worth $34.9 million (Clinton) and $40.4 million (McCain). Am I seriously supposed to take their criticisms seriously?

And the rest of the right wing media attacking Obama for being elitist are hardly any more in touch themselves—John Hindraker, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Bill ***** Kristol? These are not members of the elite themselves? Nick Bauman points out the double standard at work here:

The truth is that the right wing pronounces and the media repeats, with regularity, stupid, stereotypical slurs about large parts of American society, and no one blinks an eye. Trial lawyers, academics in their ivory towers, job-stealing illegal immigrants (with leprosy!), effete wine-drinking liberals, suburban soccer moms, granola-crunching environmentalists, and just about anyone within spitting range of "San Francisco values," are totally in-bounds for any sort of mockery the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world can cook up. But god forbid someone slur "Middle America."

Stereotyping bicoastal city-dwellers is totally fine. That's acceptable discourse. You can be "out of touch" with the 80 percent of the American population that lives in metro areas and their surrounding suburbs. In fact, it actually qualifies you to run for office. You’re down-to-earth, "real," and an "everyday guy" (or gal). Some casual stereotyping of and contempt for city dwellers and suburbanites is always welcomed. Their values and lifestyle choices and beliefs can and should be attacked. But while it's perfectly okay to hold and repeat outrageously offensive views about city folk and the values they hold dear, a city-born-and-bred man apparently can't reveal that he may hold some silly or stereotypical opinions about why small-town Americans believe what they believe. At least not if he wants to be president.


As an urban "coastal elite" myself (apparently, living in an overpriced apartment one step up from the ghetto makes me "elite"), that last one is what really stuck out of this whole "controversy" for me, this manufactured outrage by people who routinely insult broad swaths of Americans themselves.

---

---

I wouldn't quite call that article imbecilic but at best that guy misses the point entirely .



"...people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats ."


These "bitter" people do not need a savior in the form of a President or a government and the presumption that they do but just dont know it is "elitist" .

This is typical Liberal/Progressive "We know what's best for you so just shut up" BS.

--------------------
PPK ain't my daddy. Though I wish he was.- HydroSprout

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

on elitism: sure, there are republican elites, but elitism is fundamental to the philosophy of the left that an expanded centralized control of government over individuals by a liberal ruling class is what's best for people. that is to say, government can make better decisions for individuals, and should own a larger share of the fruits of their labors, than individuals can or should.

that's elitism. true conservatism is about reducing the power and control and scope of the federal government, returning responsibility and ownership to the individual and divesting government ownership over the private property of individuals.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As far as the elitist accusations. Of course Obama is an elitist. He's a politician running for President. Just like McCain and Hillary who both need to wash their hands before pointing their elitist fingers. This about sums it up for me:

Quote:

---

Obama is out of touch and elitist.
Elitist? Yes of course he is, but not any more than the other candidates. As Brad Reed noted:

Is Barack Obama really an elitist as his opponents claim? Well of course he is—he’s running for president of the United States! He wouldn’t have gotten this far in life if he’d spent the past 20 years driving a truck or moonlighting as a fry cook at Arby’s. Like every other successful politician in the United States, Obama is a member of America’s political ruling class, which means that like every other presidential candidate in recent memory, he is typically insulated from the lives of ordinary people. Does Obama really have any idea what it’s like to live like a “Real American?” Of course he doesn’t, and neither do John McCain and Hillary Clinton! Does any rational person out there believe that Obama, Clinton and McCain spend their free time away from the campaign trail hanging out at Jimmy Ray’s Chicken’n'Beer Depot playing darts with the common folk?

In theory, this point should be fairly obvious. Even before getting elected, most politicians made a good deal of money in their careers as lawyers, doctors, actors or oil tycoons—you know, real salt-of-the-earth sort of work. But for reasons that have long confounded sane people everywhere, our national millionaire press corps gives positive coverage to political candidates who are the most adept at lying about their ability to connect with regular folks.

Yeah, Obama is worth about $1.3 million bucks. But the other two candidates who are falling over themselves to condemn him for being "out of touch" are worth $34.9 million (Clinton) and $40.4 million (McCain). Am I seriously supposed to take their criticisms seriously?

And the rest of the right wing media attacking Obama for being elitist are hardly any more in touch themselves—John Hindraker, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Bill ***** Kristol? These are not members of the elite themselves? Nick Bauman points out the double standard at work here:

The truth is that the right wing pronounces and the media repeats, with regularity, stupid, stereotypical slurs about large parts of American society, and no one blinks an eye. Trial lawyers, academics in their ivory towers, job-stealing illegal immigrants (with leprosy!), effete wine-drinking liberals, suburban soccer moms, granola-crunching environmentalists, and just about anyone within spitting range of "San Francisco values," are totally in-bounds for any sort of mockery the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world can cook up. But god forbid someone slur "Middle America."

Stereotyping bicoastal city-dwellers is totally fine. That's acceptable discourse. You can be "out of touch" with the 80 percent of the American population that lives in metro areas and their surrounding suburbs. In fact, it actually qualifies you to run for office. You’re down-to-earth, "real," and an "everyday guy" (or gal). Some casual stereotyping of and contempt for city dwellers and suburbanites is always welcomed. Their values and lifestyle choices and beliefs can and should be attacked. But while it's perfectly okay to hold and repeat outrageously offensive views about city folk and the values they hold dear, a city-born-and-bred man apparently can't reveal that he may hold some silly or stereotypical opinions about why small-town Americans believe what they believe. At least not if he wants to be president.


As an urban "coastal elite" myself (apparently, living in an overpriced apartment one step up from the ghetto makes me "elite"), that last one is what really stuck out of this whole "controversy" for me, this manufactured outrage by people who routinely insult broad swaths of Americans themselves.

---

---

I wouldn't quite call that article imbecilic but at best that guy misses the point entirely .



"...people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats ."


These "bitter" people do not need a savior in the form of a President or a government and the presumption that they do but just dont know it is "elitist" .

This is typical Liberal/Progressive "We know what's best for you so just shut up" BS.

---

Its not that they need a savior in the gov't its that the gov'ts actions or inactions in the past have rendered them bitter. The gov't needs to work for the people.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

George W. Bush: "What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."

Obama was trying to answer a perplexing question - why do all these people vote against their financial best interest? Are Knuckledragger and hall. tor. that wealthy that they benefit from being Republicans? Unlikely.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

George W. Bush: "What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."

Obama was trying to answer a perplexing question - why do all these people vote against their financial best interest? Are Knuckledragger and hall. tor. that wealthy that they benefit from being Republicans? Unlikely.

---

wow, this is a perfect example of the fundamental differences between how liberals think and how conservatives think.

see, i'm not even close to wealthy because i make an average salary and am the sole provider for my family living in socal...its paycheck to paycheck for me (but i love my job, and it affords me a great deal of freedom to surf my brains out), however:

1. i believe that it is morally wrong to re-distribute wealth directly, or through services, so it would be wrong for me to accept any entitlements--its stealing .

2. i believe that 100% of tax revenues collected should be spent on common use items, services, etc., such as; infrastructure, roads, highways, parks, public property maintenance, gov't administration, public services like fire and police, courts, jails, and prisons, and the common defense/military. taxes should not be spent on social programs for the few, paid for by the fewer--it is a disincentive for good behaviors, all around.

3. individuals choosing how to spend their own money is much more stimulating to the economy than government wealth redistribution, and anyone willing to work hard has a better chance at making it when the wealthy are able to pool their capital and make it available for business investment, venture propositions, etc.

you obviously believe that the wealthy should subsidize the poor, pay for their healthcare, their childcare, their retirement, etc...

i prefer the greatest possible economic opportunity (business and jobs grownt) for all, and that is always going to be through the risk takers, the entrepeneurs, the investors, having as much money to re-invest in business and individuals to grow.

capitalism is a belief in the individual. socialism is a belief in the elitist rule over the collective.

the whole history of the 20th century should have put this to rest.

---

That's my point, you're not wealthy enough to profit from corporate welfare, so why do you support an administration that favors the welfare of the rich? It seems like you would benefit more from some poor kid in Kentucky getting a free school lunch than some baseball team owner getting a new yacht. Do you have a college degree? If so, you've received the benefits of subsidized education, an entitlement. You would have been unable to pay for a college degree if it wasn't subsidized. You're talking about a dream world and I'm talking about reality.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'M BITTER ABOUT THEM DAMM ILLEGALS.THEY COME OVER HERE, STEAL FROM US AN DON'T PAY NO TAXES. JUST TAKE,TAKE,TAKE..

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/15/immigrant.taxes.ap/index.html

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

George W. Bush: "What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."

Obama was trying to answer a perplexing question - why do all these people vote against their financial best interest? Are Knuckledragger and hall. tor. that wealthy that they benefit from being Republicans? Unlikely.

---

wow, this is a perfect example of the fundamental differences between how liberals think and how conservatives think.

see, i'm not even close to wealthy because i make an average salary and am the sole provider for my family living in socal...its paycheck to paycheck for me (but i love my job, and it affords me a great deal of freedom to surf my brains out), however:

1. i believe that it is morally wrong to re-distribute wealth directly, or through services, so it would be wrong for me to accept any entitlements--its stealing .

2. i believe that 100% of tax revenues collected should be spent on common use items, services, etc., such as; infrastructure, roads, highways, parks, public property maintenance, gov't administration, public services like fire and police, courts, jails, and prisons, and the common defense/military. taxes should not be spent on social programs for the few, paid for by the fewer--it is a disincentive for good behaviors, all around.

3. individuals choosing how to spend their own money is much more stimulating to the economy than government wealth redistribution, and anyone willing to work hard has a better chance at making it when the wealthy are able to pool their capital and make it available for business investment, venture propositions, etc.

you obviously believe that the wealthy should subsidize the poor, pay for their healthcare, their childcare, their retirement, etc...

i prefer the greatest possible economic opportunity (business and jobs grownt) for all, and that is always going to be through the risk takers, the entrepeneurs, the investors, having as much money to re-invest in business and individuals to grow.

capitalism is a belief in the individual. socialism is a belief in the elitist rule over the collective.

the whole history of the 20th century should have put this to rest.

---

That's my point, you're not wealthy enough to profit from corporate welfare, so why do you support an administration that favors the welfare of the rich? It seems like you would benefit more from some poor kid in Kentucky getting a free school lunch than some baseball team owner getting a new yacht. Do you have a college degree? If so, you've received the benefits of subsidized education, an entitlement. You would have been unable to pay for a college degree if it wasn't subsidized. You're talking about a dream world and I'm talking about reality.

---

no dude, you are talking about a dream world. corporations DON'T PAY TAXES!!!! consumers pay the taxes of corporations!

the only corporate 'welfare' is stuff like farm subsidies, where corporations actually receive payments directly from the treasury. i'm firmly opposed to ANY taxpayer dollars going to any private entities, corporate or individual. period.

you are making the fundamental and major mistake of thinking that the economy is a zero sum game--IT'S NOT!

the more money that capitalists and entrepeneurs and investors make, and the more they are allowed to keep, the more is available for individuals who want to start new businesses and create new jobs. the more new businesses and jobs that are created, the more the economic engine produces, the more opportunity is created, the more wages increase, and the more positions open up for advancement.

the pie is not finite, the pie expands with economic activity. the less gov't takes, the more effeciently it operates for those willing to work.

that baseball owner who gets a new yacht helps employ all those that build yachts, and its funny you should mention it, because the history of 'luxury' taxes instituted by liberals had a hugely negative impact on the very large industry of yacht builders in the US, causing it to totally stagnate at one point, and causing tons and tons of highly skilled builders to go out of business, putting even more people out of high paying jobs!

i don't have a degree, but because america is the land of opportunity, i worked my ass off in everything from construction, to loading UPS trucks, to doing concrete work, until i found a temporary job for chump change in a large corporation.

i had good ideas, wasn't afraid to speak-up, and i've quadrupled my salary in 8 years. i have as bright a prospect, maybe better, for that pattern to increase than many of my college and advanced degree having peers.

america is the land of opportunity, and the less gov't tries to grow at the expense of those that drive the economic engine, the more of this type of opportunity exists, as every dollar taken by gov't is inversely proportional to the growth rate in the private sector.

--------------------
"...we woke up to perfect lefts, and that was our mission."

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Can we all just stop the silly nonsense over who is an elitist and whether an "average American" will occupy the White House?

Listening to the punditry today, you would think folks who revel in the comedy of Larry the Cable Guy or Katt Williams really would have a shot at the White House.

It's totally absurd.

So, Sen. Barack Obama is all of a sudden an elitist because he went to Columbia and Harvard? And Sen. Hillary Clinton is an elitist because she went to Yale? Do you actually think Sen. John McCain isn't an elitist? He went to an exclusive college -- the Naval Academy, and that is one of the hardest places to get into. (You can't even apply unless a member of Congress recommends you.)

Karl Rove, who tries to portray himself as the common man but is just another rich Republican, has called both Democratic candidates elitists. Well, his former boss, President George W. Bush, went to Yale. So did Bush's dad, former president George H.W. Bush, and his granddaddy, former Sen. Prescott Bush. All three Bushes also were members of the super elite organization Skull and Bones. The younger Bush later went to Harvard.

He walked into the governor's mansion and the presidency on the strength of his name and his dad's money and connections. Sounds like an elitist to me!

But no, we're supposed to be fooled by the cowboy boots, folksy charm and him removing brush at his Crawford, Texas, ranch (don't forget the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, where all the "regular" folks hang out).

Surely you recall when Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court? Those same conservative voices decrying the elitist Democrats were blasting her because she went to little old Southern Methodist University, that unremarkable -- their view -- university in Dallas, Texas. (By the way, that will be the home of the George W. Bush Library.)

You can bet a pitcher of beer that had she graduated from Harvard, Yale or Princeton, she wouldn't have been derisively referred to as too plain and not educated enough by the elitists in the Republican Party.

And let's stay with the Supreme Court for a moment. Where did its members go to school?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. -- Undergrad and law school, Harvard.

Justice John Paul Stevens -- Undergrad: University of Chicago. Law school: Northwestern.

Justice Antonin Scalia -- Undergrad: Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Law school: Harvard.

Justice Anthony Kennedy -- Undergrad: Stanford University and the London School of Economics. Law school: Harvard.

Justice David Souter -- Undergrad: Harvard; Magdalen College, Oxford; Oxford University. Law school: Harvard.

Justice Clarence Thomas -- Undergrad: Holy Cross. Law school: Yale.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg -- Undergrad: Cornell. Law school: Harvard (attended); finished at Columbia.

Justice Stephen Breyer -- Undergrad, Stanford; Magdalen College, Oxford. Law school: Harvard.

Justice Samuel Alito -- Undegrad: Princeton. Law school: Yale.

That's pretty much an elite list of schools.

We have deluded ourselves into thinking the person elected to the White House is really and truly like the rest of us.

All three candidates don't know what it's like to face the daunting health care challenges millions of Americans are confronted with daily. Each are members of the U.S. Senate, and they have the best health care money can buy for life -- we pay for it! While your pension plan is shot to hell, their plan will NEVER be underfunded. The members will see to that, courtesy of taxpayer dollars.

Forget how many times Obama bowls gutter balls, Clinton tosses back shots of whiskey and McCain talks about how he's a regular guy. Each, courtesy of their $169,300 annual salary, makes far more than the average American.

And when it comes to wealth, Clinton gets to enjoy the $100 million she and her husband raked in since he left the White House (even their hefty book advances dwarf regular authors).

McCain's wife, Cindy, runs one of Anheuser Busch's largest beer distributors and is worth more than $100 million. They will never be living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Obama is the poorest of the three, but he did earn more than a million bucks courtesy of his best-selling books, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from My Father" after delivering his 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. How many average Americans wouldn't mind having a million dollars in their savings account?

Bottom line: The narrative about our presidential candidates being just regular folks is a tired myth that gets repeated each and every day. And their efforts to show that they are "just like us" are really pathetic.

You don't have to go duck hunting, be seen buying milk at the grocery store for your family or having a beer at the local bar to show that you're "one of us." Just do what rich and highly educated folks do when they are in politics: Advance policies that will at least allow me to keep a few more dollars in my pocket and be able to afford a home.

One more thing: Don't buy fully into the nonsense tossed out by some of the loudest voices on television, radio and in print who decry these "elitists" and trumpet that they are for the blue collar, middle-class worker in middle America.

Many of them pull down multimillion-dollar salaries and run into these same candidates on Martha's Vineyard and in the Hamptons when they all vacation. They, too, will pull every favor they have to get their children in the posh private schools and Ivy League institutions.

Yes, we even have elitists in the media.

Who would've thunkit?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

My dumbass friend got accepted into naval academy, he got a letter of reccomendation and everything. Its not THAT hard. He didnt even end up going.

All a harvard degree shows is that you worked your butt off in High School, or you have some connection, or both. I know someone that got into Harvard Law but not some no-name law school

None of this makes me think of them as any smarter/better than anyone else. Its not about knowledge, its about image, what LOOKS better, its a game you have to play


Plus it doesnt help that Harvard freshmen score better on the SAME tests than seniors.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My dumbass friend got accepted into naval academy, he got a letter of reccomendation and everything. Its not THAT hard. He didnt even end up going.

All a harvard degree shows is that you worked your butt off in High School, or you have some connection, or both. I know someone that got into Harvard Law but not some no-name law school

None of this makes me think of them as any smarter/better than anyone else. Its not about knowledge, its about image, what LOOKS better, its a game you have to play


Plus it doesnt help that Harvard freshmen score better on the SAME tests than seniors.

---

Getting into the Naval Academy and graduating are 2 completely different things .

I can guarantee you that you wont find Queer,Womyns or any other worthless horseshit "Studies" courses at the military academies.

---

You do realize that there are people who graduate from 4 year schools with degrees other than those you mention, right? Maybe 99% of them?

--------------------
Nothing is obscene provided it is done in bad taste.

Russ Meyer

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My dumbass friend got accepted into naval academy, he got a letter of reccomendation and everything. Its not THAT hard. He didnt even end up going.

All a harvard degree shows is that you worked your butt off in High School, or you have some connection, or both. I know someone that got into Harvard Law but not some no-name law school

None of this makes me think of them as any smarter/better than anyone else. Its not about knowledge, its about image, what LOOKS better, its a game you have to play


Plus it doesnt help that Harvard freshmen score better on the SAME tests than seniors.

---

Getting into the Naval Academy and graduating are 2 completely different things .

I can guarantee you that you wont find Queer,Womyns or any other worthless horseshit "Studies" courses at the military academies.

---

You do realize that there are people who graduate from 4 year schools with degrees other than those you mention, right? Maybe 99% of them?

---

You realize that you utterly missed my easily identified point right ?
Yer' killin' me.

--------------------
PPK ain't my daddy. Though I wish he was.- HydroSprout

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My dumbass friend got accepted into naval academy, he got a letter of reccomendation and everything. Its not THAT hard. He didnt even end up going.

All a harvard degree shows is that you worked your butt off in High School, or you have some connection, or both. I know someone that got into Harvard Law but not some no-name law school

None of this makes me think of them as any smarter/better than anyone else. Its not about knowledge, its about image, what LOOKS better, its a game you have to play


Plus it doesnt help that Harvard freshmen score better on the SAME tests than seniors.

---

Getting into the Naval Academy and graduating are 2 completely different things .

I can guarantee you that you wont find Queer,Womyns or any other worthless horseshit "Studies" courses at the military academies.

---

You do realize that there are people who graduate from 4 year schools with degrees other than those you mention, right? Maybe 99% of them?

---

You realize that you utterly missed my easily identified point right ?
Yer' killin' me.

---

I know your point. You are a reverse elitist. You have a very warped view of university curricula.

The same could be said for any school. Many get accepted and enroll. Not all graduate.

--------------------
Nothing is obscene provided it is done in bad taste.

Russ Meyer

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

you obviously believe that the wealthy should subsidize the poor, pay for their healthcare, their childcare, their retirement, etc...
...

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

dude, you aren't getting it.

democrats/socialists policies are 'elitist': they are founded upon the belief that a large and powerful centralize governement can better spend your money and make better personal choices for you regarding healthcare, education, retirement, your level of self defense and how much you should have to rely on the gov't.

conservatives, whether they are wealthy 'elites' in government have a philosophy and endorse policies that seek to limit that type of scope and control over individuals and their personal decisions about those things.

get it?

that's what people are talking about when they talk about 'liberal elitism'.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My dumbass friend got accepted into naval academy, he got a letter of reccomendation and everything. Its not THAT hard. He didnt even end up going.

All a harvard degree shows is that you worked your butt off in High School, or you have some connection, or both. I know someone that got into Harvard Law but not some no-name law school

None of this makes me think of them as any smarter/better than anyone else. Its not about knowledge, its about image, what LOOKS better, its a game you have to play


Plus it doesnt help that Harvard freshmen score better on the SAME tests than seniors.

---

Getting into the Naval Academy and graduating are 2 completely different things .

I can guarantee you that you wont find Queer,Womyns or any other worthless horseshit "Studies" courses at the military academies.

---

You do realize that there are people who graduate from 4 year schools with degrees other than those you mention, right? Maybe 99% of them?

---

You realize that you utterly missed my easily identified point right ?
Yer' killin' me.

---

I know your point. You are a reverse elitist. You have a very warped view of university curricula.

The same could be said for any school. Many get accepted and enroll. Not all graduate.

---

No , my view of a lot of university curricula is that it's utterly worthless-like anything that has the word "Studies" behind it is probably garbage produced by faux scholars....crap that you dont get at the Service Acedemies.....yet anyway.

"Reverse Elitist" ! That was awesome!Thanks for the belly laugh...and that's not just sarcasm .

Just another one of Lord Vaders faithful soldiers !


--------------------
PPK ain't my daddy. Though I wish he was.- HydroSprout

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My dumbass friend got accepted into naval academy, he got a letter of reccomendation and everything. Its not THAT hard. He didnt even end up going.

All a harvard degree shows is that you worked your butt off in High School, or you have some connection, or both. I know someone that got into Harvard Law but not some no-name law school

None of this makes me think of them as any smarter/better than anyone else. Its not about knowledge, its about image, what LOOKS better, its a game you have to play


Plus it doesnt help that Harvard freshmen score better on the SAME tests than seniors.

---

Getting into the Naval Academy and graduating are 2 completely different things .

I can guarantee you that you wont find Queer,Womyns or any other worthless horseshit "Studies" courses at the military academies.

---

whats wrong with queers and women?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My dumbass friend got accepted into naval academy, he got a letter of reccomendation and everything. Its not THAT hard. He didnt even end up going.

All a harvard degree shows is that you worked your butt off in High School, or you have some connection, or both. I know someone that got into Harvard Law but not some no-name law school

None of this makes me think of them as any smarter/better than anyone else. Its not about knowledge, its about image, what LOOKS better, its a game you have to play


Plus it doesnt help that Harvard freshmen score better on the SAME tests than seniors.

---

Getting into the Naval Academy and graduating are 2 completely different things .

I can guarantee you that you wont find Queer,Womyns or any other worthless horseshit "Studies" courses at the military academies.

---

whats wrong with queers and women?

---

They're 'mo's and biatches that's what! Geez.

--------------------
PPK ain't my daddy. Though I wish he was.- HydroSprout

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Chowhound, you know so little of the university level it is embarrassing. Have you even taken a college class? It is apparent you haven't because you are extremely misguided. The vast majority of fields are not in minority studies. Do you honestly think doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. got where they are by majoring in lesbian studies or some such?

A reverse elitist IS what you are. You take pride in being an uninformed idiot and put down those that got an education.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

we should all be like you

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Oh bullshit.

"I can guarantee you that you wont find Queer,Womyns or any other worthless horseshit 'Studies' courses at the military academies."

Yup,you wont.

"my view of a lot of university curricula is that it's utterly worthless"


Note the use of the words "a lot","a lot" doesn't imply- that you cannot go through school WITHOUT being subjected to these kinds of courses. You are full of shit and you got called on it. Don't even try to backpedal.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Oh bullshit.

"I can guarantee you that you wont find Queer,Womyns or any other worthless horseshit 'Studies' courses at the military academies."

Yup,you wont.

"my view of a lot of university curricula is that it's utterly worthless"


Note the use of the words "a lot","a lot" doesn't imply- that you cannot go through school WITHOUT being subjected to these kinds of courses. You are full of shit and you got called on it. Don't even try to backpedal.

---

No back pedaling,just schooling a college grad on the finer points of critical reading .....which you should have picked up in middle school .

---

You aren't schooling shit but you ARE fiercely backpedaling. Don't even try to deny what you were implying and have implied time and time again.

Besides, the definition of "a lot" is "to a very great degree or extent". You should have learned that one on your vocab list during one of your trips through 2nd grade. What exact percentage of courses were you thinking of when you threw that up there? Do you consider 10% to be a lot? 75%? What are you basing this perception of yours from anyways? The city college curricula you get as junk mail?

--------------------
Nothing is obscene provided it is done in bad taste.

Russ Meyer

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Oh bullshit.

"I can guarantee you that you wont find Queer,Womyns or any other worthless horseshit 'Studies' courses at the military academies."

Yup,you wont.

"my view of a lot of university curricula is that it's utterly worthless"


Note the use of the words "a lot","a lot" doesn't imply- that you cannot go through school WITHOUT being subjected to these kinds of courses. You are full of shit and you got called on it. Don't even try to backpedal.

---

No back pedaling,just schooling a college grad on the finer points of critical reading .....which you should have picked up in middle school .

---

You aren't schooling shit but you ARE fiercely backpedaling. Don't even try to deny what you were implying and have implied time and time again.

Besides, the definition of "a lot" is "to a very great degree or extent". You should have learned that one on your vocab list during one of your trips through 2nd grade. What exact percentage of courses were you thinking of when you threw that up there? Do you consider 10% to be a lot? 75%? What are you basing this perception of yours from anyways? The city college curricula you get as junk mail?

---

OK , I hereby sincerely apologize for my poor choice of words and for the discomfort this has caused some of my more "sensitive" audience members.

For the record:

IMO ANY amount of "Womyns or Queer Studies" is too much BUT I'm more than willing to let these idiotic "studies" sink or swim on their own as long as they are actually ALLOWED to sink or swim on their own.


You do not find this crap in the Service Academies(like I said "yet")because the curricula generally prepares the students for a military career and doesn't make time for bullshit "studies" courses that have absolutely zero use anywhere especially for a military man.

...and yes,I have a bit of experience teaching and developing curricula.

--------------------
PPK ain't my daddy. Though I wish he was.- HydroSprout

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Trust me - the vast majority of those choosing to major in soft majors like those don't exactly get very far unless they stay long enough to get a Ph.D.

---

Post Extras: