We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Kill The Rich! Am Thinker. But aren't there tons of rich Dems? I'd wager that there are far more filty rich Dems than there are Conservatives. Certainly true in public life, beginning with the Clintons and the Obamas. And heck, Wall Street has been a huge Dem donor source for years.
Hey Will! We're part of the anti-intellectual knuckle-dragging, nose-breathing Right, and we are offended by that. Truth is, 97.4% of the Conservative political brains are in Newt's head.
Putin's admonition about socialism is interesting. Many of us believe that socialism flies in the face of human nature. It might be somewhat like marijuana; it won't necessarily sink your boat, but for many, it affects the zeal for accomplishment.
The comment about Republican intellectual capital doesn't track for me. But I do agree that the Republican party should be far more libertarian in its policy positions. There are many life choices I consider immoral but that I want left out of the legislative arena. I will say that generally Republicans have been better about defending great liberties, like property and opportunity, and the Democrats have threatened them. The Dems seem to want us to accept lesser liberties, like pornography and sexual freedom, while they still the great liberties. Bad trade, but if the Republicans are goring your ox, it can look good.
What is perceived as anti-intellectualism isn't anti-intellectualism per se.
There is a backlash against the condescension and paternalism of those who believe that their academic credentials give them some kind of super-powers and the right to tell others how to live their lives. The last election taught us that individuals who have degrees from mere state universities are inferior and we are expected to kowtow in awe to fancy academic pedigrees.
For myself, I prefer the company of knuckle-draggers.
It isn't just academic credentials that engender "condescension and paternalism" on the part of many who would tell me how to live my life. Even though I live my life damn well and righteous, all things considered. There are those who rest on the pews an hour a week who would, if they could, do the same.
Remember; Commander in Chief Liar said on October 7, 2008, "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority"
But he doesn't say that anymore.
As of January 14 he says, "I think that we have to so weaken [bin Laden's] infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function," he said. "And I'm confident that we can keep them on the run and ensure that they cannot train terrorists to attack our homeland."
So why send more troops into Afghanistan to kill someone who is already dead?
Oh, right to make Al Qaida run.
Seems they needn't run any further than Swat Valley where they have safe haven.
President Hussein's war in Afghanistan is already a quagmire.
He is another liar in the tradition of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson who were experts in ordering American troops to be needlessly morassed.