Colo. Professor Investigated For Palin Assignment

[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?

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

If you so dislike the content of my threads, and you're such a lofty fellow yourself, then why are you compelled to be a consistent contributor?

I mean it's beneath a lofty fellow like you, right? I mean you seem to enjoy wallowing in the mud, no?

BTW, comments such as you posted above really make you look foolish. They resort to name calling and insults which tells me your out of any substantive arguments, assuming you ever had any in this thread, and I can find only bits and pieces, scattered randomly in your postings between personal attacks and insults ladled on various respondents.....

Edited September 19, 2008 by kaydee457

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you so dislike the content of my threads, and you're such a lofty fellow yourself, then why are you compelled to be a consistent contributor?

I mean it's beneath a lofty fellow like you, right? I mean you seem to enjoy wallowing in the mud, no?

BTW, comments such as you posted above really make you look foolish. They resort to name calling and insults which tells me your out of any substantive arguments, assuming you ever had any in this thread, and I can find only bits and pieces, scattered randomly in your postings between personal attacks and insults ladled on various respondents.....

Well to correct you slightly - I responded to you personally, in the much the same vein as you respond to me and others at a distance with your silly stereotypes. Given that you do indeed use broadbrush stereotypes (that are often far removed from the reality of the world outside your head) - pretty much every time you post it involves name-calling and insults. When you choose to generalise in my general direction, I choose to take it personally