Colo. Professor Investigated For Palin Assignment

[ginger1981 0]

Well now I didn't start this thread to initiate a war.....I merely wanted to point out a trend that characterizes liberals and enlighten as to why there's a very negative connotation top the term.

Yes, I've used the stereotype as an example to demonstrate that it appears the negativity associated with the term is well deserved.

Liberals, whether clear to themselves or not, engage in some pretty peculiar behaviors that's apparently disenfranchised a good number of people in this country. Those behaviors are apparent right here in this forum.....

And no Number, I'm not talking in generalities as I've itemized these behaviors in many posts in this forum before.

I see this election, one that was clearly in favor of the democrats, squandered by the choice of an elitist candidate that speaks to like minded liberals about what he's diagnosed as the affliction that ails those in middle America, and whose candidacy is rooted in superficiality, has appealed to the worst elements of his own party, and are now repaying him by, well acting out their stereotypical liberalism through ill informed activism.....thanks Hollywood, thanks Ward Churchill, thanks, Chris Matthews, thanks Olbermann, and thanks to the biased MSM .....

You're guaranteeing that at the least it'll be a much tighter race than anyone ever expected, and at the most, the republicans will retain the WH.

I think your problem is you state your opinion as it is some sort of fact. If you want to have a debate where you can be taken seriously you should probably watch how you word your comments.

Sure, I'll debate it but it seems moot to do so given the overwhelming empirical evidence supporting my contentions. Liberals earned the disdain they've been having to deal with.

That is taking the easy way out. I could spout off some random stuff about all Republicans being rabid fundie evangelicals who believe that ID should be taught in schools and that Obama is a Muslim...but it's absolutely not true.

You say someone is elite, I say that they are intellectual. Potato/po-tah-toe. I'm just saying that pretending your opinion is indeed a fact doesn't make it reality.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well now I didn't start this thread to initiate a war.....I merely wanted to point out a trend that characterizes liberals and enlighten as to why there's a very negative connotation top the term.

Yes, I've used the stereotype as an example to demonstrate that it appears the negativity associated with the term is well deserved.

Liberals, whether clear to themselves or not, engage in some pretty peculiar behaviors that's apparently disenfranchised a good number of people in this country. Those behaviors are apparent right here in this forum.....

And no Number, I'm not talking in generalities as I've itemized these behaviors in many posts in this forum before.

I see this election, one that was clearly in favor of the democrats, squandered by the choice of an elitist candidate that speaks to like minded liberals about what he's diagnosed as the affliction that ails those in middle America, and whose candidacy is rooted in superficiality, has appealed to the worst elements of his own party, and are now repaying him by, well acting out their stereotypical liberalism through ill informed activism.....thanks Hollywood, thanks Ward Churchill, thanks, Chris Matthews, thanks Olbermann, and thanks to the biased MSM .....

You're guaranteeing that at the least it'll be a much tighter race than anyone ever expected, and at the most, the republicans will retain the WH.

I think your problem is you state your opinion as it is some sort of fact. If you want to have a debate where you can be taken seriously you should probably watch how you word your comments.

Sure, I'll debate it but it seems moot to do so given the overwhelming empirical evidence supporting my contentions. Liberals earned the disdain they've been having to deal with.

That is taking the easy way out. I could spout off some random stuff about all Republicans being rabid fundie evangelicals who believe that ID should be taught in schools and that Obama is a Muslim...but it's absolutely not true.

You say someone is elite, I say that they are intellectual. Potato/po-tah-toe. I'm just saying that pretending your opinion is indeed a fact doesn't make it reality.

[kaydee457 13]

Well now I didn't start this thread to initiate a war.....I merely wanted to point out a trend that characterizes liberals and enlighten as to why there's a very negative connotation top the term.

Yes, I've used the stereotype as an example to demonstrate that it appears the negativity associated with the term is well deserved.

Liberals, whether clear to themselves or not, engage in some pretty peculiar behaviors that's apparently disenfranchised a good number of people in this country. Those behaviors are apparent right here in this forum.....

And no Number, I'm not talking in generalities as I've itemized these behaviors in many posts in this forum before.

I see this election, one that was clearly in favor of the democrats, squandered by the choice of an elitist candidate that speaks to like minded liberals about what he's diagnosed as the affliction that ails those in middle America, and whose candidacy is rooted in superficiality, has appealed to the worst elements of his own party, and are now repaying him by, well acting out their stereotypical liberalism through ill informed activism.....thanks Hollywood, thanks Ward Churchill, thanks, Chris Matthews, thanks Olbermann, and thanks to the biased MSM .....

You're guaranteeing that at the least it'll be a much tighter race than anyone ever expected, and at the most, the republicans will retain the WH.

I think your problem is you state your opinion as it is some sort of fact. If you want to have a debate where you can be taken seriously you should probably watch how you word your comments.

Sure, I'll debate it but it seems moot to do so given the overwhelming empirical evidence supporting my contentions. Liberals earned the disdain they've been having to deal with.

That is taking the easy way out. I could spout off some random stuff about all Republicans being rabid fundie evangelicals who believe that ID should be taught in schools and that Obama is a Muslim...but it's absolutely not true.

You say someone is elite, I say that they are intellectual. Potato/po-tah-toe. I'm just saying that pretending your opinion is indeed a fact doesn't make it reality.

It's not the easy way out.....You're relatively new to these "debates" but I've argued with these same cast of characters for a long time.

You can spout off what you want but you would be hard pressed to fing evidence of a concerted effort by Hollywood conservatives, media conservaties, or even cable news journalist that are in private conservative, that use their profession and their responsibilty to remain objective to achieve their own personal political choice.

Oh, and I forget the well documented liberal control and activism by most college professors, and their use of their positions to further their own personal political agenda.

Sure there are some "evangicals" and others such as commentators like Rush and Sean, but they're not cloaked and projecting an image of impartiality and using their positions to further their political beliefs without full disclosure.

Only the liberal base that claim to belong to the Democratic party do that in any numbers that matter. There's a bias in the MSM that I've never seen in my lifetime, and I'm not a young fellow anymore. It permeates in Hollywood (which most of the time is negative but in given the superficial Obama movement this election is different).

It clear that MSNBC, and NBC, as well as some that purport to be journalists and not commentators at CNN are openly biased.

People such as Chris Mathews and Kieth Obermann openly supported Obama, with Chris actually moderating a primary debate....unbiased? Hillary should have walked out!

I'm in agreement with many that he's an elitist based on his own behavior. When he talks about what he thinks afflicts the masses in a conversation with like minded liberals; the guns and religion stuff, he's an elitist.

That's the conclusion that middle america came to also.

Edited September 19, 2008 by kaydee457

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh lord.

Such a centrist. I commend thee.

[kaydee457 13]

Oh lord.

Such a centrist. I commend thee.

Yes, I like to think of myself as such.

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh lord.

Such a centrist. I commend thee.

Yes, I like to think of myself as such.

Of course you do. On a scale of one to ten I am sure you see the center as the number 9.

[kaydee457 13]

Oh lord.

Such a centrist. I commend thee.

Yes, I like to think of myself as such.

Of course you do. On a scale of one to ten I am sure you see the center as the number 9.

Well, there was a time when I voted for Billy boy...Do I get any credit for that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well now I didn't start this thread to initiate a war.....I merely wanted to point out a trend that characterizes liberals and enlighten as to why there's a very negative connotation top the term.

Yes, I've used the stereotype as an example to demonstrate that it appears the negativity associated with the term is well deserved.

Liberals, whether clear to themselves or not, engage in some pretty peculiar behaviors that's apparently disenfranchised a good number of people in this country. Those behaviors are apparent right here in this forum.....

And no Number, I'm not talking in generalities as I've itemized these behaviors in many posts in this forum before.

I see this election, one that was clearly in favor of the democrats, squandered by the choice of an elitist candidate that speaks to like minded liberals about what he's diagnosed as the affliction that ails those in middle America, and whose candidacy is rooted in superficiality, has appealed to the worst elements of his own party, and are now repaying him by, well acting out their stereotypical liberalism through ill informed activism.....thanks Hollywood, thanks Ward Churchill, thanks, Chris Matthews, thanks Olbermann, and thanks to the biased MSM .....

You're guaranteeing that at the least it'll be a much tighter race than anyone ever expected, and at the most, the republicans will retain the WH.

Yes Kaydee you absolutely did - if you didn't you wouldn't have implied collective "liberal" guilt on the basis of the article, or the suggestion that individuals need look for contrasting examples to justify why they think the way you do. It just isn't a fair argument.

As to peculiar behaviour - from where I sit, going off on insane diatribes about "liberal types" isn't exactly the mark of a rational person, and ironically enough - it actually undermines the argument you think you are making.

There you go again....Insanity is what you appear to be. You're just making a fool of yourself again. Nobody can take what you write credibly because you act out on your liberal frustrations.

Like I said before, and please listen up this time, I'm not responsible for the negative conotation attached to that kind of behavior, you earned that disdain......

You certainly are responsible for the negative connotations you apply to individuals on the basis of group stereotypes.

As I said - I don't go around making ridiculous diatribes about self-styled conservatives. I certainly could, but I don't. And it isn't because there isn't a stereotype for that...

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh lord.

Such a centrist. I commend thee.

Yes, I like to think of myself as such.

Of course you do. On a scale of one to ten I am sure you see the center as the number 9.

Well, there was a time when I voted for Billy boy...Do I get any credit for that?

So there was a time when you were what? 5 or 6?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

an elitist candidate

McCain - 7 houses

Middle America - 1 house. Possibly facing foreclosure.

candidacy is rooted in superficiality

Palin

has appealed to the worst elements of his own party

McCain, choosing Palin

The term "elitist" is used in the context of a state of mind, not a declaration of wealth.....Liberals, particularly Obama that speaks of the affliction that ails middle america as a problem amongst his likeminded liberal friends; the guns and religion stuff, is an elitist. A person of with the belief that they are of superior intellect.

His candidacy is rooted in superficiality. There's no other way to describe his rise from his staus as a Junior Senator. He's a populist candidate void of experience and proven substance compared to others that ran against him in the primaries.

His rise was/is mostly due to his skin color, an admission he agrees with, rather than anything else.

Actually no that's wrong. As I said the other day an "elitist" is someone who promotes rule by an elite few (i.e. an oligarchy or a plutocracy). A person can be part of an "elite" group (rich, highly educated etc) but it doesn't make them "elitist".

What you're actually saying is that Obama's comments about small town people were snobbish. Again - that's entirely different to "elitism".

Of course - someone who uses a bigger word (elitist) where a smaller word (snob) will do - in order to give their arguments added weight and emphasis is being a tad snobbish themselves

Listen Number.....If you want a literal definition then, sure, you're right. However, the term's been in popular use to describe people that are aloof, such as Liberals and now with Obama.

It's pretty ####### to argue the literal meaning when you full know that the term is applied to this candidate, and why.

The fact is that the word's in common use and applied to Barack Obama. Apparently you don't read the news, or you simply have poor reading comprhension and retention......whichever way, as in most cases your argument is silly and just adds to this foolish image you project in this forum.

just a Google on Obama and Elitist yields 11,000 hits.........

Quite simply - popular use doesn't change the definition of the word - any more than the popular misunderstanding of the word "irony".

[kaydee457 13]

Oh lord.

Such a centrist. I commend thee.

Yes, I like to think of myself as such.

Of course you do. On a scale of one to ten I am sure you see the center as the number 9.

Well, there was a time when I voted for Billy boy...Do I get any credit for that?

So there was a time when you were what? 5 or 6?

Well, if the democrats fielded an electable candidate that's reasonably experienced and not to the extreme left, and beholden to those on the far left, then perhaps I would take a look.

Unfortunately Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and their ilk has made the party radical far left....

Obama is beholden to organizations like move on, and his world view is naive in most, if not all respects. He's backed off his most idiotic assertions but he's still a very weak candidate.

Given the Bush hate out there, Obama should be double digits in front of McCain yet he's even......It's supposed to be a democratic year.

As much as I disliked Hillary I could have lived with her as President, and I even resigned myself to her win, I have no doubt that she would be double digits ahead by this time.....

I really think the dems imploded once again......

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh lord.

Such a centrist. I commend thee.

Yes, I like to think of myself as such.

Of course you do. On a scale of one to ten I am sure you see the center as the number 9.

Well, there was a time when I voted for Billy boy...Do I get any credit for that?

So there was a time when you were what? 5 or 6?

Well, if the democrats fielded an electable candidate that's reasonably experienced and not to the extreme left, and beholden to those on the far left, then perhaps I would take a look.

Unfortunately Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and their ilk has made the party radical far left....

Obama is beholden to organizations like move on, and his world view is naive in most, if not all respects. He's backed off his most idiotic assertions but he's still a very weak candidate.

Given the Bush hate out there, Obama should be double digits in front of McCain yet he's even......It's supposed to be a democratic year.

As much as I disliked Hillary I could have lived with her as President, and I even resigned myself to her win, I have no doubt that she would be double digits ahead by this time.....

I really think the dems imploded once again......

Only time will tell as to whom has imploded. Either way, there is serious sh!t ahead of us and somehow I doubt that continuing bucking the current bornco's wild run will help at all. So it may not even be an issue- as you claim it to be- of what you consider to be strength, but on doing what has to be done to avert drowning in our own stupidity. Yet you said it. Obama SHOULD be in the double digits ahead. Even on polls that are as unreliable now as they were for Kerry's lead in 2004.

[kaydee457 13]

an elitist candidate

McCain - 7 houses

Middle America - 1 house. Possibly facing foreclosure.

candidacy is rooted in superficiality

Palin

has appealed to the worst elements of his own party

McCain, choosing Palin

The term "elitist" is used in the context of a state of mind, not a declaration of wealth.....Liberals, particularly Obama that speaks of the affliction that ails middle america as a problem amongst his likeminded liberal friends; the guns and religion stuff, is an elitist. A person of with the belief that they are of superior intellect.

His candidacy is rooted in superficiality. There's no other way to describe his rise from his staus as a Junior Senator. He's a populist candidate void of experience and proven substance compared to others that ran against him in the primaries.

His rise was/is mostly due to his skin color, an admission he agrees with, rather than anything else.

Actually no that's wrong. As I said the other day an "elitist" is someone who promotes rule by an elite few (i.e. an oligarchy or a plutocracy). A person can be part of an "elite" group (rich, highly educated etc) but it doesn't make them "elitist".

What you're actually saying is that Obama's comments about small town people were snobbish. Again - that's entirely different to "elitism".

Of course - someone who uses a bigger word (elitist) where a smaller word (snob) will do - in order to give their arguments added weight and emphasis is being a tad snobbish themselves

Listen Number.....If you want a literal definition then, sure, you're right. However, the term's been in popular use to describe people that are aloof, such as Liberals and now with Obama.

It's pretty ####### to argue the literal meaning when you full know that the term is applied to this candidate, and why.

The fact is that the word's in common use and applied to Barack Obama. Apparently you don't read the news, or you simply have poor reading comprhension and retention......whichever way, as in most cases your argument is silly and just adds to this foolish image you project in this forum.

just a Google on Obama and Elitist yields 11,000 hits.........

Quite simply - popular use doesn't change the definition of the word - any more than the popular misunderstanding of the word "irony".

And this is what? Your "gotcha" moment?

When you have nothing tangible to say you divert to minutia. I conceded that in the literal it's the wrong word.

If you want to correct the perception and the use as applied to Barack Obama then please, by all means, write the MSM outlets and correct them for they made the association, and it's meaning isn't lost on their readers.

As of now the context of the use is synonymous to a person that’s aloof...........kay?

[kaydee457 13]

Well now I didn't start this thread to initiate a war.....I merely wanted to point out a trend that characterizes liberals and enlighten as to why there's a very negative connotation top the term.

Yes, I've used the stereotype as an example to demonstrate that it appears the negativity associated with the term is well deserved.

Liberals, whether clear to themselves or not, engage in some pretty peculiar behaviors that's apparently disenfranchised a good number of people in this country. Those behaviors are apparent right here in this forum.....

And no Number, I'm not talking in generalities as I've itemized these behaviors in many posts in this forum before.

I see this election, one that was clearly in favor of the democrats, squandered by the choice of an elitist candidate that speaks to like minded liberals about what he's diagnosed as the affliction that ails those in middle America, and whose candidacy is rooted in superficiality, has appealed to the worst elements of his own party, and are now repaying him by, well acting out their stereotypical liberalism through ill informed activism.....thanks Hollywood, thanks Ward Churchill, thanks, Chris Matthews, thanks Olbermann, and thanks to the biased MSM .....

You're guaranteeing that at the least it'll be a much tighter race than anyone ever expected, and at the most, the republicans will retain the WH.

Yes Kaydee you absolutely did - if you didn't you wouldn't have implied collective "liberal" guilt on the basis of the article, or the suggestion that individuals need look for contrasting examples to justify why they think the way you do. It just isn't a fair argument.

As to peculiar behaviour - from where I sit, going off on insane diatribes about "liberal types" isn't exactly the mark of a rational person, and ironically enough - it actually undermines the argument you think you are making.

There you go again....Insanity is what you appear to be. You're just making a fool of yourself again. Nobody can take what you write credibly because you act out on your liberal frustrations.

Like I said before, and please listen up this time, I'm not responsible for the negative conotation attached to that kind of behavior, you earned that disdain......

You certainly are responsible for the negative connotations you apply to individuals on the basis of group stereotypes.

As I said - I don't go around making ridiculous diatribes about self-styled conservatives. I certainly could, but I don't. And it isn't because there isn't a stereotype for that...

No sir. You just don't get it.

The label 'liberal' was at one time just that, a label that described a persons political leanings, of course on the left.

Unfortunately it has morphed into a term that has a negative connotation to it, not assigned by me personally, but earned by those identified as liberal through their own actions that apparently weren't approved by many.

As far as I know no such negative connotation exists or is attached to conservatives.

I'm not applying negative connotations on anyone. I do however identify people in this forum that clearly behave in a manner consistant with a liberal. That's my assesment of their opinions, after having read their opinions many times.

The negative meaning is integral to the term. People that are not on the left snicker when others are identified as a liberal.

I hope that liberals can someday change that perception.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

an elitist candidate

McCain - 7 houses

Middle America - 1 house. Possibly facing foreclosure.

candidacy is rooted in superficiality

Palin

has appealed to the worst elements of his own party

McCain, choosing Palin

The term "elitist" is used in the context of a state of mind, not a declaration of wealth.....Liberals, particularly Obama that speaks of the affliction that ails middle america as a problem amongst his likeminded liberal friends; the guns and religion stuff, is an elitist. A person of with the belief that they are of superior intellect.

His candidacy is rooted in superficiality. There's no other way to describe his rise from his staus as a Junior Senator. He's a populist candidate void of experience and proven substance compared to others that ran against him in the primaries.

His rise was/is mostly due to his skin color, an admission he agrees with, rather than anything else.

Actually no that's wrong. As I said the other day an "elitist" is someone who promotes rule by an elite few (i.e. an oligarchy or a plutocracy). A person can be part of an "elite" group (rich, highly educated etc) but it doesn't make them "elitist".

What you're actually saying is that Obama's comments about small town people were snobbish. Again - that's entirely different to "elitism".

Of course - someone who uses a bigger word (elitist) where a smaller word (snob) will do - in order to give their arguments added weight and emphasis is being a tad snobbish themselves

Listen Number.....If you want a literal definition then, sure, you're right. However, the term's been in popular use to describe people that are aloof, such as Liberals and now with Obama.

It's pretty ####### to argue the literal meaning when you full know that the term is applied to this candidate, and why.

The fact is that the word's in common use and applied to Barack Obama. Apparently you don't read the news, or you simply have poor reading comprhension and retention......whichever way, as in most cases your argument is silly and just adds to this foolish image you project in this forum.

just a Google on Obama and Elitist yields 11,000 hits.........

Quite simply - popular use doesn't change the definition of the word - any more than the popular misunderstanding of the word "irony".

And this is what? Your "gotcha" moment?

When you have nothing tangible to say you divert to minutia. I conceded that in the literal it's the wrong word.

If you want to correct the perception and the use as applied to Barack Obama then please, by all means, write the MSM outlets and correct them for they made the association, and it's meaning isn't lost on their readers.

As of now the context of the use is synonymous to a person that’s aloof...........kay?

Ah so if I wanted to say something tangible - I guess should go off on a big rant about 'Conservatives'

What this shows... if you need me to point it out - is that not only do you express yourself in terms of stereotypes, but that you have a sheep mentality as well.

In a word you are quite ignorant.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Paul Daniels