[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
Not to completely change the subject, but did anybody else see the new South Park mocking glenn beck? Pretty damn hilarious I thought.[/quote]
It was pretty good.
Nice effort, but Chris Matthews and David Letterman are not leaders in the Liberal movement by any stretch. If you knew anything about liberals, you’d know that most of them hate Chris Matthews and think he’s an idiot and a crass Washington insider who kisses up to whoever is in office. And David Letterman is just a comedian like Jay Leno or Johnny Carson.
You should have said Olbermann (who is a pompous douche), Michael Moore was a good pick, and Jon Stewart.
The problem with a parody post is that the liberal movement has no shortage of intellectuals, and that was the point of my post.
When I say Noam Chomsky, you say (_____)
You’ve got nothing in response. There is a lack of intellectual depth on the right. And that’s true in Congress as well, IMO. Republicans are good at campaigning and getting their faces on TV, but not good at legislating. When your political philosophy is that intellectuals are the enemy, it can come back to bite your ass later. Now that Safire and Buckley are gone, there is nobody to fill the void.
When I say creating dollars causes what the left goes (_____).
And I am more then willing to say Jon Stewart can be a leader for the progressives. In fact you should champion him. I give him 3-4 days before he is laughed off the political stage.
He already is a fringe joke, watching his show die will be almost as sweet as watching the NYT die.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Buckley and Safire were not leaders either. They were pundits.[/quote]
They were INTELLECTUAL LEADERS, that was my point from the very beginning. Now the Right has people like Beck and Hannity doing their thinking.
I don’t know you, and I can’t keep track of everybody’s personal political philosophy. You defended Glenn Beck, that’s good enough for me to peg you as right wing. You’re certainly not a democrat or a liberal, if you are defending Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck is not a real libertarian, according to many libertarians, and he’s not a republican according to many republicans. He’s definitely a circus clown - he even called himself a circus clown, didn’t he? Sadly, we have many people taking him very seriously, on the right.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beck does a magnificent job of expressing conservative, libertarian thinking.
[/quote]
That is debatable, but even if he does do a good job, he also comes off as being crazier than a shithouse rat. That was the point of the first post (i believe the phrase he used was ‘irrational fuckhead who is easy to mock’).
I merely agreed, and mentioned Buckley as a stark comparison to Beck’s clownery. You disagree - maybe Beck is deep and profound to you. Big whoop dee doo.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I really do think the true clown is the guy who criticizes that which he has not examined. And THAT is not debatable.[/quote]
Glenn Beck called himself a clown. That seems to bother you.
Hell, I’m a liberal so I love Glenn Beck because I think he turns a lot of people off. I love that about him.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Nice effort, but Chris Matthews and David Letterman are not leaders in the Liberal movement by any stretch.[/quote]
Ok…so how about Nancy Pelosi? She counts as a leader of the liberal movement, right?
[quote]K2000 wrote:
You’ve got nothing in response. There is a lack of intellectual depth on the right…[/quote]
And the left depended largely on those with 7th grade reading levels to win this past election. Continue…
[quote]K2000 wrote:
but not good at legislating.[/quote]
You mean like the way the House took 4 months to get a health care bill through by a margin of a couple of votes when they already had the majority?
[quote]K2000 wrote:
When your political philosophy is that intellectuals are the enemy.[/quote]
You mistakingly conclude that liberals hold a monopoly on intellectualism and therefore any philosophy that is anti-liberal is inherently anti-intellectual. Claiming to be an intellectual also does nothing to validate your opinions. I’ve come across plenty of “intellectual” liberals backed into a corner by 22 year old libertarian college students during debates and discussions.
Funny thing about the right though…most of our intellectuals lived 200-300 years ago and the culmination of their works and thinking is a little document called the Constitution. Not as flashy as The Daily Show or Michael Moore’s movie debacles, but it gets the job done and has been doing so for more than 200 years.
Sorry but the Right has a history of looking down upon ‘intellectuals’ and ‘ivory tower academics’ and considering them a societal ill. Too bad you don’t know that.
Are you still in high school like John S.? That would explain the gap in your historical perspective.
As a result of this contrast, the Left champions long-winded gasbags like John Kerry, while the Right goes for plain-speaking dimwits like Dubya and Palin.
My bad… Beck called himself a rodeo clown, not a circus clown. Big difference there.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
Sorry but the Right has a history of looking down upon ‘intellectuals’ and ‘ivory tower academics’ and considering them a societal ill. Too bad you don’t know that.
Are you still in high school like John S.? That would explain the gap in your historical perspective.
As a result of this contrast, the Left champions long-winded gasbags like John Kerry, while the Right goes for plain-speaking dimwits like Dubya and Palin.[/quote]
The right has a history of looking down upon “ivory tower academics” who champion welfare states and communism as being more “humane”, “fair” or “free”. There have been plenty of conservative academics that the right has no issue with. You are making the false assumption that “intellectual” and “conservative” are mutually exclusive. Along with your inability to distinguish between an apostrophe and a quotation mark, this makes me think that maybe YOU are the one who should be heading back to high school.