Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
You're sick of other people being smarter than you. We get it.

Ask youself this question... Who is smarter? The kid who got someone else to do his homework or the kid doing the homework for someone else?

Isn't the only REAL currency we have time?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Your point seemed to have been, don't bring non-pols into this - Hollyweird is full of outlanders and we shouldn't be judged by them. My point, as to Moore, was that he's been accepted into the mainstream inner circle of demdom, and most certainly represents that philosophy, and that group. How is this non-responsive? My other examples were Moveon/Soros/.org, another main player, and . . . others I don't remember now. All pertinent and relevant. At least the ones I remember . . .

I don't think so. If you are supposed to be the ticket of bi-partisanship and your job is to come to agreements on issues that the two parties might otherwise argue about and you don't even try because you control Congress and don't need to, I don't think your criticism can be that you didn't because Michael Moore was invited to the fucking convention.

The Administration is not dealing with Moore when it comes to the operation of the government. It is not dealing with Moveon.com. It is not dealing with Soros. It is supposed to be dealing with the elected officials that occupy the seats on the other side of the aisle. If you're telling me that they really wanted to be the ticket that brings back bi-partisanship but refused to try because the other side didn't agree with them then your argument couldn't be more weak.

TM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
Don't be stupid. You're well-paid.

No, I mean that the measure of success in our society is wealth, and there are a lot of very smart academics who really resent the fact that they are not valued higher than people who are, in their minds, dumber than them. There's a resentment that their own perceived intellectual gifts don't translate into that monetary measure of success - that our society fails to reward the right factors.

And these academics are just as insecure as the type A Republican strivers who sell every last minute of their lives to make as much money as possible so society will accept them. So what? Both sides possess these metaphorically littled-dicked people. Fuck both of these groups for not having any self-confidence.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
When G-3 posts something, almost everyone scrolls.

So true, I didn't even catch him ripping on me.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
And these academics are just as insecure as the type A Republican strivers who sell every last minute of their lives to make as much money as possible so society will accept them. So what? Both sides possess these metaphorically littled-dicked people. Fuck both of these groups for not having any self-confidence.

Thats true. If you accept that the best measure of success is amount of quality time, you'd have to say academics are the most successful people alive, next to people of fortunate birth and sports and rock stars.

Smart = loving what you do.

Dumb = trading hours for money.

I'm pretty fucking dumb, and so are most of the rest of us. But its my own fault, so I'm not about to blame it on the rules. I bought this deal with the devil.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So true, I didn't even catch him ripping on me.

But that means you don't get the Gilligan posts

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
If you're telling me that they really wanted to be the ticket that brings back bi-partisanship but refused to try because the other side didn't agree with them then your argument couldn't be more weak.

I may WANT to play nice with you, and I may TELL YOU that I'll play nice with you, but that doesn't extend to sticking around as you smack me with a baseball bat and yell to mom that I'm not playing nice with you.

At some point, there's a need for cooperation from your side to make an attempt worthwhile. After Florida, it became clear that the Bush-hate was going to be the predominant emotion. I may tell mom that I'll play nice with you, but, if you then stand there yelling "shithead!" at me, well, maybe our failure to play doesn't all rest on me.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I mean that the measure of success in our society is wealth, and there are a lot of very smart academics who really resent the fact that they are not valued higher than people who are, in their minds, dumber than them. There's a resentment that their own perceived intellectual gifts don't translate into that monetary measure of success - that our society fails to reward the right factors.

Okay. But can you apply this analysis to what we're actually talking about? It may be true that people generally dislike when a rich kid gets richer when he hasn't a brain in his head. Do you think our society does reward the right factors? Is athleticism more important than intellect? Is an inheritance better than a hard-earned degree? Can you relate your statement back to what we're talking about somehow?

TM

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Doesn't count. Never having made much money at all himself, he gets a sort of honorary underachiever status.

Wait. Are we talking about Kerry or W?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Wait. Are we talking about Kerry or W?

I don't think W's is honorary.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
FOR THE RECORD, that is not MY point. Thats my point twisted a bit. My point was just that the greatest measure of intelligence is succeeding in whatever endeavor you're in. If you choose academia, than it is being the objectively smartest. If you choose politics, its being the guy with the most votes. If you choose politics, but focus on being smartest instead of amassing the most votes, you're not very smart.

I ignored your post for a reason. Being the smartest at politics is different than being the smartest generally speaking. And if I refuse to change my positions because I live in a red state where all I have to do to win is say, "I will reduce taxes," [primarily for the rich without regard to the consequences], it doesn't make me stupid. It makes me principled.

TM

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Okay. But can you apply this analysis to what we're actually talking about? It may be true that people generally dislike when a rich kid gets richer when he hasn't a brain in his head. Do you think our society does reward the right factors? Is athleticism more important than intellect? Is an inheritance better than a hard-earned degree? Can you relate your statement back to what we're talking about somehow?

TM

Easy. Seb was speaking of how Ty's City on the Hill (New Ulm?) can only be reached if you, in fact, can win an election and put yourself into a position to help create that city. It's a lot like that SNL Dukakis debate line ("how the hell am I losing to this guy?!") He should have been winning, if voters valued the factors that he valued. Point was, they didn't. Lefty academics should be handsomely rewarded, if society valued the academics' gifts as highly as the academics do. Point was, they don't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why cannot it just be the fault of the idiot Democrats in charge of ordering the ballots in the first place?

It surely is, as it was in West Palm Beach.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're totally correct about the leftist resentment. Its very prevalent in this industry. "But I was law review... why am I getting canned?" We're in a false meritocracy that creates a whole lotta people who are smart in some compartmentalized arena, but they lack the whole package. The left is chock full of these people - long on theory, short on action. "getting the dough" requires that extra bit of energy the left doesn't want to expend. The lefties are always the kids who'll tell you in a heartbeat that they don't want to shmooze anyone. That's "below them". They're smarter than that. But how smart is someone who doesn't recognize that perpsnal relationships are one of the most important things in one's career? The left seems to believe, because they're wrongly trained by teachers who harbor strong resnetments, that intelligence in the strictest book-derived organizational diligence form is a rare currency which ought to collect a premium. How soon they learn otherwise. Did they really think that there weren't 10 other equally smart people out there selling the same skill set? These lefties then get jaded and develop a hatred for the people who succeed by hustling or working personal networks. They deride self-promoters as showboats. They become threatened judgmental people, and as techincally smart as they may be, they are not palatable to 70% of people. No one wants them around. The left is isolated, and unless higher education starts focusing more on how to give these kids complete skill sets needed for careers, rather than mere theoretical knowledge, there are going to be a lot more of these angry people around bitching about how they have to work for people like Clinton or Bush.

You sound like the idiot at work who measures his success by the value of the Bentley he drives.

Not only that, but you are probably the worst "schmoozer" within a 30 mile radius of yourself. You're the one who thinks he's getting over on everyone, schmoozing the cute female judge out of her robes with your lack of support for your arguments and your plain-speak when everyone else is wincing while they watch you make a fool of yourself.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, but you'll never get brick one of that City laid unless you start playing by the rules which control who gets access to the the bricks.

Its not smart to lose over and over because you find the rules of the game repugnant. That sort of arrogance may get you a round of applause at a round table discussion of policy wonks and professors, but the prize here is not being thought objectively smart. The prize is votes.

The left seems to hit this perpetual disconnect where it defines the "win" as looking superior, but losing the game. Your brightest politician, Clinton, taught you nothing. You were always embarrassed by his "white-trashness" and commonness. In actuality, he embarrassed the left most because he was smarter than the lot of you. He knew how to think and how to manipulate the masses. He was the real left's greatest fear come to life because he showed that true intelligence was not just being able to theoretically debate policy with long words, but being able to actually understand its practical implications AND (and this is important) being to sell it to people who only understand short words. The left squandered the lessons of the smartest cat it ever had. He's laughing in Chappaqua. He'd have killed Bush months ago... He knows that to beat bush you have to be somewhat like Bush, and he knows the left would sooner drink rat poison. But he's a winner, and thats the difference between him and the smarter-than-everyone-by-half lefties.

There are lefties who are pie-in-the-sky-over-the-ivory-tower idealists, and there are those who aren't. Maybe there are more of the former in the Democratic Party because in this country, if all you care about is making yourself a pile of money and then using government power to protect your wad, the Republican Party is the party for you. Trying to defend the left from your attacks would be about as much fun as trying to defend it from bilmore's ranting, so I'll pass.