Beyond the ridiculousness of his point, I hate that somehow a good education is now considered a bad thing. Am I an elitist because I worked hard to go to two good schools?
Remember: Ignorance is to be celebrated, and intelligence excoriated. You were elitist for trying to understand the world around you beyond the commandments of God and therefore you have strayed from the path of blind worship, because your knowledge is a challenge to that intrinsic power structure.
I swear, we're reliving the Enlightenment all over again, except we're going backwards and even the Jesuits are condemned.
Its not reverse Enlightenment as much as it is simply just the world turning into the world from A Brave New World. We're too fragmented to go through any such "movement".
Isn't that what you types have been saying for awhile now?
I made a post about this in the BAR but I think it would be more appropriate here. I recently read a couple articles about Gary Johnson and he made an appearance on the Colbert Report, and I have to say he seems like a reasonable alternative to any of the Republican candidates (shocking) and even a reasonable alternative for people disappointed with Obama (even if he hasn't been as bad as people are claiming). If Obama and Romney (no one thinks it's going to be Santorum except Santorum) keep making gaffes, it could be perfectly possible that the public may turn to a third party. I think I would be cool with a Libertarian
You know. Intellectual types. I was gonna add "pretentious" or something like that in front of that, but i decided not too because you people hate when I do that.
But its true. Students of Huxley have been saying for years that soon mass ignorance will be preferential to mass knowledge, just like he predicted/wrote about in A Brave new world.
I'm not going to be offended by the implications here because I'd much rather have a pretentious attitude because I'm an intellectual than be pretentious because I'm a dumbass. I know too many people who look down on people because those people don't act like idiots.
When climate change, evolution, and big bang deniers stop using religious dogma as an excuse, or conversely - lack of knowledge about how the scientific process works as a means to cast doubt on theories, then I'll stop thinking that way.
I don't think it's pretentious to examine one's own view of the world, to not be dogmatic in nature and have a respect for general knowledge and expertise. I will never know everything, I think that sort of goes without saying, but to reject something with evidence based solely on grounds of willful ignorance en mass is destructive to scientific progress and the society as a whole.
We cannot compete with the rest of the world if a large portion of our society is refuses to believe in the basic ideas of how the universe and world works, and rejects those that do because they dare have knowledge.
Sorry, I must be out of the loop, what gaffes of Obama's are we talking about here? The hot mic thing with the Russian PM? Not sure I'd really classify that as a gaffe, certainly not next to the endless fountain of nonsense Romney supplies.
No doubt, Obama has hardly said anything on par with Romney or any of the other Republican circus people, but the way he talked with the Russian PM was tactless nontheless. I hardly believe Obama will misspeak to the same extent as Romney, but he tends to alienate parts of the Democratic base by expanding presidential power over the last 3 years. I still think he is the best presidential candidate, even with third party candidates like Gary Johnson, but some of his previous followers may be convinced to join a third party much like disenfranchised Republicans
OK, that's fair enough, I just usually think of "gaffes" as unforced speaking errors, not just an overheard conversation expressing confidence in his re-election. Given the competition, I think a little confidence is more than warranted.
Sorry, I must be out of the loop, what gaffes of Obama's are we talking about here? The hot mic thing with the Russian PM? Not sure I'd really classify that as a gaffe, certainly not next to the endless fountain of nonsense Romney supplies.
I'd absolutely classify what Obama did as a gaffe.
some political strategist defined a gaffe as "inadvertantly speaking the truth."
Obama being captured telling putin that "look, I cant do that right now, I'll be more free to act after the election" is exactly that.
As a matter of realpolitik it's not suprising at all. Any politican can't say things before an election that he might say after, and world leaders around the world have their own constituencies to answer to, even the autocratic ones.
But it's a gaffe nonetheless. The same way that the Romney advisor "etch a sketch" comment was a gaffe. It's more than just getting confused, it's saying something that's true, but inconvenient.
fair enough, I suppose. I guess I've just gotten used to the term referring to a politicians saying something astonishingly stupid, rather than merely inconvenient.
In this case, though, I think it was a gaffe to some extent because it's basically saying "I can't support you now, but after I can stop caring, I'll do it".
It's actually a lot like the etchasketch thing, now that I think about it a bit...
Again, a fair point, but I think Obama's comment was as Ben described it, a politically inconvenient moment of transparency, while the etch-a-sketch thing (noting of course that it was not Romney himself who said it, but that he's said any number of equally stupid things to crowds and interviewers) was more on a level of twirling your gun around and shooting yourself in the face.
If Ron Paul were to run in the Libertarian Party (where he belongs) he would still lose to Gary Johnson. They hold very similar beliefs, but Ron Paul has a borderline isolationist approach on foreign policy, there is no chance he can effectively win over the public with the way our international community is constructed.
If Ron Paul were to run in the Libertarian Party (where he belongs) he would still lose to Gary Johnson. They hold very similar beliefs, but Ron Paul has a borderline isolationist approach on foreign policy, there is no chance he can effectively win over the public with the way our international community is constructed.
Gary Johnson has his faults as well(You know, that whole Gitmo thing..)
That being said, I'd support Gary Johnson if/when Ron Paul drops out and declines a third-party run.
I am so sad. I had hoped for a Christian/Catholic president that would govern our Christian nation as it should be...one nation under God...someone who would seek out God's will and the good of the people over self-made agendas and having inordinate love of money, power, and reputation.
