If You Suspect Obama Supporters Are, Well, Dumb…

…well, you’ve got good reason – from The Daily Caller:

…when asked what Obama had done to promote peace, she confessed she couldn’t think of any examples.

Another student said she supported everything that he was doing. His very existence was creating peace, she said.

“I just feel like in general being a good guy, it’s just creating a lot more peace and like, mellow,” she said. “The fact that he is for the people creates peace in and of itself.”

When asked how she could support Obama’s Syrian policies but oppose Bush’s Iraq policies, she justified the contradiction by stating, “Bush, I just didn’t like him.”

I’m telling you, its getting harder and harder to support universal adult suffrage.  When you read things like that, the desire to just give up becomes very strong.  We’re dealing with people who clearly haven’t the foggiest notion of how the world works.  But, then, you remember these are college students – and 90% of them are only being prepped to work in the Government/Corporate bureaucracies…and if we can curtail those bureaucracies, these dimwits will have to enter the real world, and that will eventually bring them ’round to our way of thinking.  Or, truth be told, to the act of thinking, at all.

It is, though, going to be an uphill climb – remember, as we try to save the nation, people like this will stand idiotically in our way…not out of malice, but simply because they don’t know any better.  But there is a cure for that – it is these dimwits combined with people in the blue cities which give liberalism its electoral power…and I think there are enough working poor in the blue cities who can be moved our way and when combined with our base in suburban and rural areas, that is enough of a majority to start hacking away at government and corporate bureaucracies with a meat axe until they are small enough to be managed.

HAT TIPAce of Spades

 
Advertisements

50 thoughts on “If You Suspect Obama Supporters Are, Well, Dumb…

  1. Retired Spook September 21, 2013 / 7:47 am

    …and if we can curtail those bureaucracies, these dimwits will have to enter the real world, and that will eventually bring them ’round to our way of thinking. Or, truth be told, to the act of thinking, at all.

    Mark, there’s an old saying: “you can’t fix stupid”. Fortunately, people who are this stupid are also likely to make really bad choices and decisions in life, and many will simply be removed from the gene pool by their own actions.

    • M. Noonan September 21, 2013 / 12:48 pm

      Spook,

      I have more faith than that – because I’ve seen liberals who have been forced in to the real world finally come around to rational thought. At bottom, statements like these in favor of Obama are made because these kids have been told all through their education that the black man is always right – you don’t think they are telling the full story of black America in those black studies courses, do you? They are given a socialist, two-dimensional story about how things work – and as Obama is the black guy and Romney was the white guy, Romney had to be wrong.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 21, 2013 / 12:55 pm

        And popular culture Mark; isn’t the theme of the new Oprah movie that all Whites are racist-even the ones with the best intentions, and all blacks endure in quiet dignity?

      • M. Noonan September 21, 2013 / 3:35 pm

        True – and Oprah is actually one of the more baleful influences of our society. Pretend righteous indignation about things she doesn’t understand; gross consumerism; pantheist twaddle…

    • neocon01 September 24, 2013 / 8:35 am

      Fortunately, people who are this stupid are also likely to make really bad choices and decisions in life, and many will simply be removed from the gene pool by their own actions.

      as we witness daily by barrys “sons” in his own home town.

  2. americanforchange September 21, 2013 / 9:52 am

    I see it that many Obama supporters supported and voted for him because at the time it was “the thing everyone else was doing”. Just like everyone wanted Apple products, or everyone suddenly became a Patriots fan many just wanted to be part of the trend. I asked my own son, and a few other I worked with similar questions about Obama and a lot of people said because they didn’t like George Bush. And a few, even my son said they wanted Obama President because they didn’t want Bush in office. This tells you how some people don’t pay attention to the issues, just wanted to be part of “the change” that was supposed to happen. Oh we changed alright, for the worse.

    • Amazona September 21, 2013 / 11:18 am

      Did you point out to your son that even if Obama lost, Bush would not be in office?

      Nearly the entire base of the Left is nearly as ignorant, if not downright stupid. It is All Emotion, All The Time. Most who vote for the Left (1) don’t even realize they ARE voting for the Left, thinking they are just voting for some issue, and (2) do so out of some vague unspecified dislike for what they feel is represented by “conservatives”.

      But we, on the Right, continue to dance to the tune called by the Left, getting sucked into “issue” after “issue” instead of simply DEFINING “Left” and “Right” and then making elections a choice between the two.

      • M. Noonan September 21, 2013 / 12:50 pm

        I’d love to be able to make a 100 question quiz to administer to all those who have earned a doctorate in history over the past 10 years…but I could craft such a quiz where 90% of them fail to get even 50 questions right.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 21, 2013 / 12:52 pm

        Amazona,
        I think that was his point about Bush.

        But, I’ve gone through this with the daughter’s boyfriend(s), they’ll proudly tell me they’re Liberals because that means they’re for individual freedom, caring for one another, and keeping the government and its religion out of their personal lives.

        They oppose Republicans because we will force our abortion opinions on them, we’ll force them to be Christians, we’ll put blacks in chains and our wimmin-folk will be bear-da-footed an’ pregnemt.

        Appealing to the Millennials on a Constitutional philosophy is moot; they believe, because they’re taught, that the Constitution is largely irrelevant having been written long before iPhones and Pinterest. They are largely ignorant and damn proud of it. Issues are the only things they vote on.

        Ditto mom; Bob Dole was going to take away her Social Security checks and Medicare. Dole’s interpretation of collective action and the equal protection clause is a bit esoteric on which to base a campaign.

      • americanforchange September 21, 2013 / 2:52 pm

        Yes I explained that to my son. But this is how our public schools educate students today. I feel that all of this political bickering and lack of bipartisanship between both parties is destroying this nation. Whatever happened to government serving the people, not the people serving the government? I only see things getting worse and the bottom falling out before we recover.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 21, 2013 / 3:40 pm

        Whatever happened to government serving the people, not the people serving the government?

        Not sure when you went to High School, but I remember learning in my US History Class that our government as being much more vicious to one another in halcyon days gone by. Public dueling with political rivals; accusations of all manner of criminality and misdemeanoring, spreading rumors involving barnyard animals and alcohol, and trying to personally destroy political opponents and their progeny.

        If you think returning to the good old days of civil service means civility then you’re in the wrong country.

      • Retired Spook September 21, 2013 / 5:12 pm

        If you think returning to the good old days of civil service means civility then you’re in the wrong country.

        Case in point.

      • 02casper September 21, 2013 / 8:42 pm

        “M. Noonan Post authorSeptember 21, 2013 at 12:50 pm

        I’d love to be able to make a 100 question quiz to administer to all those who have earned a doctorate in history over the past 10 years…but I could craft such a quiz where 90% of them fail to get even 50 questions right”

        I’m guessing that those with doctorates could craft a test that you would also fail. I know I could. History is a big subject and it isn’t hard to create a test that others will fail if that’s what you are trying to do.
        You could try taking a history test yourself. Try this one:

        World and U.S. History: Content Knowledge
        http://www.ets.org/praxis/prepare/materials/5941

        I’d love to know what you get on it.

      • M. Noonan September 22, 2013 / 12:12 am

        Casper,

        There seems to be a fee involved – I’m not willing to pay for it. But, go ahead – make up a test. I absolutely assure you that I won’t look up any of the answers. I doubt you could come up with 50 history questions I don’t know the answer to…but, beware, I also know a lot of the falsehoods which pass for history…so, if you try to throw in some ethic studies nonsense where the correct answer is a lie, I’ll call you out on it. I’ll even make it easy for you – here are the history books in my shelves, so you can stay away from them as you pick the questions:

        Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin; The Father of us All: War and History – Ancient and Modern; The Fall of Saigon; Empire’s End; The Guns of August; History of the Second World War (B H Liddell Hart); The Last Battle; Castles of Steel: Britain Germany and the Winning of the Great War at Sea; Righteous Gentiles; In Mortal Combat: Korea 1951-1953; This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive; Goodnight Saigon; The First World War (Cyril Falls); The Two Ocean War; An Encylopedia of Battles; Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India; A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponesian War; Stalin’s Secret Agents; Russia: A History; The Great Mutiny; Israel: A History; The Fate of Africa; Hitler, the War and the Pope; Maria Theresa; The Spanish Civil War; The Arab-Israeli Wars; In the Shadow of the Winter Palace; William the Conqueror; Rendezvous With Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America; Reagan’s Secret War; Ripples of Battle: Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War; Stillwell and the American Experience in China: 1911-1945; A Noise of War: Caesar, Pompey, Octavian and the Struggle for Rome; Past Worlds: Atlas of Archeology; Jane’s Fighting Ships of World War I; Jane’s Fighting Ships of World War II; Atlas of Ancient Egypt; History of the World: Earliest Times to Present Day; A History of the English Speaking Peoples; George Washington (biography in four volumes); Andrew Jackson (biography in three volumes); The World Crisis 1911-1918; The Black Book of Communism; Europe’s Ghosts: Tolerance, Jihadism and the Crisis in the West; Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne; The China White Paper; The West Point Atlas of American Wars; The Annals of Tacitus; Admiral of the Ocean Sea; Selected Lives (Plutarch); The Diplomacy of Annexation: Texas, Oregon and the Mexican War; The European Discovery of America; A Battle from the Start (biography of Nathan Bedford Forest); Coolidge: An American Enigma; Medieval History; John C. Calhoun: American Portrait; Richard the Third; The Incredible War of 1812; The History of the Confederacy; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; The Path Between the Seas; Battle Cry of Freedom: the Civil War Era; A Compact History of the Revolutionary War; The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History; The Arms of Krupp; American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 – 1964; The Last Lion, Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory 1874 – 1932; The Last Lion, Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932 – 1940; The Yom Kippur War; The Gulag Archipelago (three volumes); A Diplomatic History of Europe Since the Congress of Vienna (bet 9 in 10 college graduates couldn’t identify what the Congress of Vienna even was); The Fall of the House of Hapsburg; Nicholas and Alexandra; War Through the Ages; France and England in North America (two volumes); Wars of the 20th Century; 1453: the Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West; Affirmative Action Around the World; Conquests and Cultures; A Conflict of Visions; The Great Heresies; Henry II; The Last 100 Days; The Battleground: Syria and Palestine the Seed Plot of Religion; Dynamics of World History; A People’s Tragedy: the Russian Revolution, 1891 – 1924; Adolf Hitler (biography in two volumes); A Military History of the Western World (three volumes, J F C Fuller); Khruschev: A Career; Peter the Great; The Bounapartes; Stalin; Mao; The Campaigns of Napoleon; Silent Coup: the Removal of a President; Nelson’s Trafalgar: the Battle that Changed the World; Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy; The Imperial Cruise: a Secret History of Empire and War; Memoirs of Napoleon Bounaparte (Baron Meneval’s diary – bet not 1 in ten thousand college graduates know who Meneval was); Blacklisted by History: the Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy; A History of the Ancient World; A History of Britain: Volume III the Fate of Empire, 1776 – 2000; The Rise of the West; A Short History of England; A History of the United States; Malplaquet (bet not a single college graduate over the past 20 years knows what Malplaquet even is – animal, vegetable or mineral…there is a small chance that a graduate with a certain particular specialty might have heard of it); The History of Puerto Rico; A Better War: the Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam; History of the War Between Mexico and the United States; The Federalist Papers; Up From Slavery: Autobiography of Booker T Washington; Gestapo; Not Peace But a Sword: the Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam.

        Of course, that is just what I have in the shelves right now – I’m not inclined to list all the books of history I have read but did not retain in my personal library. But please, by all means, have at it. See if you can stump me.

      • Amazona September 22, 2013 / 12:35 pm

        Sure, cappy could put on his pointy lower-level-academe hat and come up with a history test most would fail. So what?

        What about the most basic elements of American history? I really don’t think an understanding of the role of cereal grains in Mesopotamia is very important to today’s day to day life and decision-making, but what about more current affairs?

        My vet once had her sister, a pharmacy student, accompany her on a ranch call. This was a day or so after JFK Jr.’s plane disappeared, and my vet asked if I had heard anything about it. Her sister, in her mid 20s and presumably fairly well educated, said to me “Wasn’t his father famous or something?”

        We have people choosing our form of government who have absolutely no idea (much less interest) regarding any aspect of why we ARE the United States of America. So skip the sneering efforts to show people up for not knowing the names of nomadic tribes in the 16th century, and take a look at what people know now, about what should be of great personal importance to them.

        Such as why people came to this continent, what formed their political views, what were their goals when they established a nation with a formal Constitution, why did they write this Constitution the way they did, how did this rule of law shape our development, when did the nation start to shift away from it, which presidents and other leaders contributed to the erosion of Constitutional adherence, what are the definitions of “Right” and “Left”, what are the definitions of socialism, communism, fascism, progressivism, Liberalism, and conservatism, where and how have these various political philosophies been put into play, what were the results, what were the reasons for the wars of the 20th Century, etc.

        It’s great to have a deep and wide knowledge of history, but I think it essential to have at least an overview of the history that formed our nation, at least if one is going to participate in its governance by voting.

    • neocon01 September 22, 2013 / 10:20 am

      , and all blacks endure in quiet dignity?
      Yeah ask the residents in chicongo the MURDER capital of the USA

      • neocon01 September 22, 2013 / 10:25 am

        Whatever happened to government serving the people, not the people serving the government?

        socialism, an invasion ILLEGAL peasants, hoards of feral blacks poisoned by leftist garbage atheism and brainwashed that whitey is the devil….ask ubama and wright,

      • neocon01 September 22, 2013 / 10:29 am

        I’m guessing that those with doctorates could craft
        toilet paper “degrees” BFD ask “DR” MLK, je$$e, Al, stand up joe……..FN morons with a college degree……..even OJ has one….ROTFLMAO!!!!

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) September 23, 2013 / 4:02 pm

        Neo,
        I believe the first “Doctorate” for MLK was an earned PhD from Boston College (1955). He received many Honorary Doctorates after that. But, he did have a bone fide Doctorate he earned all on his own.

      • neocon01 September 24, 2013 / 8:41 am

        count

        he was an AA student and his well known plagiarism was ignored, If not he would have been another algore donk flunkey.
        instead he became a faux reverend agitator, hustler, womanizer. and a “hero” martyr after his death.

  3. 02casper September 22, 2013 / 11:04 am

    Mark,
    I’ll start with a question I had to answer on a history test. What was the significance of the Declaration of Sentiments and the the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848?

    • M. Noonan September 22, 2013 / 12:18 pm

      Trivial to actual history, very important to liberals who believe that there is such a thing as “women’s rights”. There are, of course, no such things – there are things which are human rights, and then there are things which aren’t. But desperate to find something they can cast as a feminist action prior to the idiotic 1970’s, liberals seized upon Seneca Falls, which was no more than a gathering of cranks and which had no real consequence to history. Not much more need be said about the crank aspects of it than these fine ladies were early progenitors of the Temperance movement…which held that because some people couldn’t handle their booze, no one should have any. In this, of course, they were not just the true progenitors of modern feminism, but of all that host of social busy-bodism in liberalism…because Elizabeth Cady Stanton stood up in the 19th century, we’ve got Michelle Obama hectoring us about our diets in the 21st century.

      Now I’ll turn it about – please explain the significance of the Treaty of San Stefano.

      • 02casper September 22, 2013 / 3:06 pm

        Mark,
        You get points for knowing what it was, but your analysis is pretty weak. The movement that started at Seneca Falls eventually led to both the 18th and 19th amendments. Both which affected millions of lives. Hardly trivial. The fact that you don’t like the results doesn’t make any difference.
        I’d like to know what your definition of “actual history” is.

      • M. Noonan September 23, 2013 / 12:09 am

        Casper,

        It was, though, a brief analysis – but about all it was worth. As for the great and glorious victory of the 19th Amendment – it was hardly necessary. By 1919, only 7 States (of the then-48) had no female suffrage, at all, while the other 41 had some sort of female suffrage, with 15 States having full suffrage. Three or four more years would have brought it forward in all the States, even without the amendment. Your problem is that you likely view women’s suffrage from the feminist perspective – which has at its base the idiotic lie that women couldn’t vote because men were wickedly determined to keep women down. It was nothing of the kind. Voting was an act of full citizenship and it was felt, philosophically, that as women could not fight in defense of the polity, they should not make the laws which may send the polity to war. The women’s movement has struggled valiantly against a non-existent foe. If men really wanted to keep women down, down they would be…but civilized, Christian men never wanted that and never did that. And so women got the vote – not because they had to overcome prejudice, but because they asked for it, and men gave it to them (the one thing never done in giving the vote to women was to ask women to vote on it – in fact, the suffragettes were very much opposed to canvassing the female population because of the likelihood of the suffragettes losing the vote). If you want to see a society where men keep women down, look at the Muslim world. You think a female suffrage movement is going to arise there? That women would be even so much as allowed to ask? Where are the horrible, sexist oppressors when as long back as the 1850’s American women free to have a suffrage convention and then set about advocating for a vote?

        And this brings me back to my point: I just know more history than college graduates. I know more about the condition of women in the 1850’s, I’ll bet, than a Feminist Studies major does.

        And, meanwhile, what about the Treaty of San Stefano?

      • Amazona September 22, 2013 / 3:32 pm

        “The fact that you don’t like the results doesn’t make any difference.”

        And here we have yet another example of the inherent dishonesty of casper. He not only produces a blatant lie—-that Mark doesn’t like what he calls the results of this emoting in 1848—in doing so he uncovers the repugnant nastiness that underlies his posts. It is in his character—to use the word loosely—-to assume the ugliest thing about anyone, and to invent an ugliness if none is readily apparent.

        Classic casper………………………………….

      • Amazona September 22, 2013 / 3:37 pm

        “I’d like to know what your definition of “actual history” is.”

        Do you have one? After all, so many of your comments that claim to have historical foundations are simply wrong, it seems you might be asking this question not in your usual querulous peevish effort to get a ‘gotcha’ but because you simply have no idea what “actual history” is.

        I guess the obvious answer, clearly not obvious to you, is that “actual history” would be an account of something that actually happened. Yes, this would be unfamiliar territory to you, so lost in the weeds of your odd beliefs and interpretations and downright untruths.

        BTW, still waiting to hear why you think the Founders came back so soon after the ratification of the Constitution to amend it with the Bill of Rights. You know, “actual history”.

      • Amazona September 22, 2013 / 3:41 pm

        ” The movement that started at Seneca Falls eventually led to both the 18th and 19th amendments. ”

        Then the fact that Thomas Jefferson freed two slaves in his lifetime and another five in his last will and testament “led to” the Civil Rights Act.

        Eventually.

      • 02casper September 24, 2013 / 9:21 pm

        “M. Noonan Post authorSeptember 23, 2013 at 12:09 am

        Casper,

        It was, though, a brief analysis – but about all it was worth. As for the great and glorious victory of the 19th Amendment – it was hardly necessary. By 1919, only 7 States (of the then-48) had no female suffrage, at all, while the other 41 had some sort of female suffrage, with 15 States having full suffrage. Three or four more years would have brought it forward in all the States, even without the amendment.”

        Have you considered that maybe the reason female suffrage was happening might have been because of the movement started at Seneca Falls? Do you have a different reason as to why it happened?

        “And this brings me back to my point: I just know more history than college graduates. I know more about the condition of women in the 1850′s, I’ll bet, than a Feminist Studies major does.”

        Actually, there isn’t anything you wrote that would suggest that, in fact just the opposite. It sounds like your opinion more than history. You can claim anything you want, but because you’ve never taken and passed a history course or test there is no way you can objectively prove it.

      • M. Noonan September 25, 2013 / 1:07 am

        Casper,

        I admit that I have a view of history which is startling. I recall once that I gravely offended a blogger when I pointed out that the genesis of the French Revolution wasn’t so much a desire for liberty as a desire of the bankers of France to loot the Church; they had lent great sums to the French government which could not repay and the only institution in France which had enough money to cover the King’s debts was the Church. Most people don’t consider this, but when you look at all the great revolutionary movements from the Reformation on in Europe, the first thing done was to seize the property of the Church. Under the cover of words about liberty, the French bankers got their way (proof of this actuality beneath the high sounding words is that it was only the mob in Paris – brought out and paid for by the bankers – which wanted an overthrow of the monarchy and the looting of the Church; most French people just wanted some reasonable reforms, which the King was actually fully inclined to grant); and when the mob got out of hand, they installed Napoleon…who carefully confirmed the bankers in their stolen property and, hey presto!, no more revolutionary ferment.

        As I’ve said endlessly, never pay too much attention to what people say. Look at what they do. People gathered together at Seneca Falls to say lots of things, but not much was done in the matter of female suffrage for 50 years…which indicates a strong disconnect between the two events, even though in the early years of the Suffrage movement some of the old timers from Seneca Falls were still hanging around. You have to consider what was being done and happening in those 50 years – Civil War, settling the West, building up American industry. We got rich and what was a tiny number of leisured women in 1850 became a much larger number of such women in 1900…these women kindly asked for the vote and were swiftly given it. It wasn’t much of a fight – nothing at all compared to, say, the struggle of black Americans to merely have their human dignity recognized by the larger society.

        And the thing about me is that I know what people were doing in the past. I know what they were doing in 1,000 BC, 1AD, 1,000 AD, etc. How they lived, what they thought – I see their actions through the prism of their lives. I don’t project backwards what people are saying today and apply it to them – it is absurd to do that. Just look at what they did and learn from it – sit at the feet of your master; don’t try to lord it over dead people. The problem with you liberals is that you try to cast the past in terms of what you’re saying today…and when the facts of the past don’t square with what you say, you just make up nonsense about the past. I know it. And that is why you can’t trip me up – while you can probably find some obscure trivia I’m not aware of (but you won’t find much – in any life of studying history, you’re bound to pick up massive amounts of trivial knowledge), the basic facts of what actually happened are well known to me.

    • Amazona September 22, 2013 / 12:42 pm

      Of course casper would fixate on something like this. So you tell US, cappy—aside from its symbolism, what IS its “significance”? Only a Lefty would be so impressed by a declaration of FEELINGS. But then, to people like you this IS what matters.

      You are so funny, preening about your knowledge of this obscure and symbolic declaration of feelings, while still being so ignorant of your own Constitution that you argued with me for many posts about your insistence that if I believe in the Constitution as it is written I believe we should have slavery, and women should not vote.

      • M. Noonan September 22, 2013 / 12:56 pm

        The main thing, for me, is that I know about it – that will bother him. I do have some weak areas in my knowledge of history, of course, but the thing is that as weak as I am in some areas, I’m still likely to be better informed than most college graduates. I’m not super smart and I’m not at all special…I just have read. A lot. For decades. And as much knowledge as I obtain I’m always humbled by realizing that college graduates 100 years ago knew more than me…heck, most of them knew at least a bit of Latin and Greek! And I’m not talking about people headed for a scholarly career in Latin and Greek…just your basic, run-of-the-mill liberal arts grad knew such things. As well as plenty about many other things…though long studies about the Seneca Falls Convention were likely missing…these days, they don’t know Latin, but they know about Seneca Falls. Improvement? I hardly think so.

      • ricorun September 22, 2013 / 3:25 pm

        Mark: the thing is that as weak as I am in some areas, I’m still likely to be better informed than most college graduates.

        Do you have any objective verification of that? Also, I notice you say, “most college graduates”. Did you really mean to say “most college graduates majoring in history”?

      • M. Noonan September 23, 2013 / 12:12 am

        Outside of the hard sciences, I’d put my knowledge up against any sort of college graduate. I’m no doctor, nor am I a physicist – but if you go in to the Liberal Arts areas, I am just convinced I know more than the college kids. I know this because I see them and what they say – horribly, amazingly ignorant. I do wonder what they were actually doing with their four, six or eight years in college because when they write or speak, nothing remotely connected to reality comes out.

      • Amazona September 22, 2013 / 4:02 pm

        Rilly, Mark! And what do you mean by “likely”? Can you quantify that? And what do you mean by “some areas”? Can you be more specific? Define “some” and define “areas”. What do you mean by “weak”? In relationship to what? To whom? Can you provide a measurement for that term? What do you mean by “still”? Are you referring to a point in time? Does this mean that later your statement will not be true? How much later? What is your chosen measurement of time? Do you reconcile your time measurement with the atomic clock? Can you provide an objective analysis of the term “better”? Again, in relationship to what? To whom? What or who is your standard for “better”? Is there a consensus on the validity of this standard? What is “most”? Do you mean to say “a majority of..”? Please be more precise. Do you include all colleges in your statement? What about dental college? What do you mean by “special”? Is this advanced-placement special or missing-chromosome special? If you are going to use a word you must define it to an acceptable level of specificity.

        In general, your entire post fails to meet the most exacting standards of peevish nit-pickers-pleading-for-attention.

      • M. Noonan September 23, 2013 / 12:13 am

        Well, let’s give them their chance – maybe they’ll come up with something I don’t know about, at all.

      • ricorun September 22, 2013 / 6:28 pm

        Amazona: In general, your entire post fails to meet the most exacting standards of peevish nit-pickers-pleading-for-attention.

        Actually, I only left a very brief comment — on Mark’s post. And the real problem there is that Mark’s entire post failed to meet even the most moderate standards of anyone who didn’t actually believe him in the first place.

        Then again, that appears to have become the whole point of B4V, especially in the last month.

      • 02casper September 22, 2013 / 9:16 pm

        Mark,
        “I do have some weak areas in my knowledge of history, of course, but the thing is that as weak as I am in some areas, I’m still likely to be better informed than most college graduates.”

        Of course that’s easy to claim, but hard to back up. Have you ever taken an advanced History test? If so how did you do? Have you ever completed a course in history? The fact that you have read a lot of books is a good thing, but it’s not the same as taking a course and having to read what a professor wants you to read. It’s not the same as doing research and writing papers where you have to defend your ideas. I have a number of history books on my shelf also, but I also continue to take history courses that expand my knowledge in other ways.

      • neocon01 September 25, 2013 / 2:12 pm

        reek-0
        Then again, that appears to have become the whole point of B4V, especially in the last month.
        so it seems to you…..guess it’s hard to wash off the mental shiite you ingest over at the blog for LOONS, LOSERS and just plain idiots.

    • Amazona September 22, 2013 / 12:45 pm

      cappy, try to achieve some semblance of relevance, even if only for a fleeting moment in time.

      What is the history of the Bill of Rights? That is, why did the Founders come back so quickly after the ratification of the Constitution and amend it?

      • tiredoflibbs September 22, 2013 / 2:25 pm

        Cappy knows history? What can we expect from a guy who believes that obAMACARE was “democratically passed by majorities in both houses”, it was debated and it was read by Congress. Well, putting the political bribes, the “Louisiana Purchase” for example, aside, it did pass by a majority in the House but in the Senate it did not. It was “passed” in the Senate through reconciliation where the full process of debate, voting to end debate (requiring 60% vote) and voting to pass it. They used gimmicks to get it out of the Senate. Plus, he believes that the 2000+ page bill was read and fully debated. Remember Pelosi’s “we have to pass it to see what is in it” when asked specifics about the bill.

        Cappy claims to have taken courses at Hillsdale College. Hmmmmm, I wonder what the results were. Cappy has failed to recall accrate facts in the most recent history on obamacare, the Iraq war and even the 2000 election.

      • Amazona September 25, 2013 / 10:41 pm

        Have you noticed the evasion of questions about a subject casper has bragged about studying, just a few weeks ago?

  4. neocon01 September 24, 2013 / 8:43 am

    cappy has been outed AGAIN LOL

    • Amazona September 24, 2013 / 11:19 am

      One of the things I have noticed about cappy is that he has absolutely no sense of personal dignity. He gets slammed down time after time, proven not only wrong but so profoundly and egregiously wrong it would shame any normal person, and he just keeps coming back for more. He seems oddly insulated from reality by his conviction that what he does sets him above the rest, that taking tests and being in the position of imparting knowledge to children somehow means he knows more, and is better, than people who do not. His little bubble seems impenetrable. I am always reminded of the contrast between his conviction that his kids “love” him, as shown by the “fact” they want him to sit with them at lunch, and what I have been told, which is that he barges in and invites himself into a group, and of course the kids can’t say no, we don’t want you to sit here. It would just be a sad little commentary on a sad little delusional man, but then he comes here and makes his outlandish statements, trots out his inherent dishonesty, tops it off with utter stupidity, and it makes it harder to feel sorry for him.

      • 02casper September 24, 2013 / 9:25 pm

        Amazona,
        You are always good for a laugh. You bring projection to a new level. Keep it up please.

      • neocon01 September 25, 2013 / 2:14 pm

        catspuke
        You bring projection to a new level. Keep it up please.

        only in the tiny mind of a weasel who thinks he is a legend in his own time, but in reality is only a legend in his own mind….

      • Amazona September 25, 2013 / 8:03 pm

        neo, you have to admit that casper is predictable. When I posted about his utter lack of personal dignity, I knew he would scurry back to prove me right. The poor sap doesn’t even know what “projection” means, but he did hear it as a favorite Lefty accusation a while back.

      • 02casper September 25, 2013 / 8:42 pm

        “The poor sap doesn’t even know what “projection” means,”
        Actually, I have a pretty good idea.

        “Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.[1] For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.”

        Fits you to a T.

      • 02casper September 25, 2013 / 9:48 pm

        Amazona,
        On a different note, kudos to you for finally confronting and deleting some of neo’s racist posts. You are at least trying.

      • Amazona September 25, 2013 / 10:34 pm

        cappy, you’ve made my point for me. You can give it a rest now.

        What you seem to find incomprehensible is that not every notice paid to the behavior of another person is “projection” You cut-and-paste “….For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.” But what flies right over your head is that, while this MAY occur, usually when someone is accused of being rude, it is because he is rude. So you can take off your Junior Shrink hat, because it just makes you look even sillier.

        I can see why you feel such a desperate need to deny the truth, but it’s an uphill battle, and one that serves only to highlight, word by word, the accuracy of the observations about you.

        And as far as whatever you are mewling about, regarding neo, I have absolutely no idea.

        As usual, you make no sense whatsoever.

Comments are closed.