Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 13 Oct 2008 16:03 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
curious wrote:
Are you generalizing Republicans?
Just the ones who are so far to the right, that they've convinced themselves that Sarah Palin would do a better job at the presidency than Hillary Clinton.
No sir. There are many people whom are not even right wingers who are convinced of this. Hillary and Bill are evil gangsters and thugs.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Mon 13 Oct 2008 16:07 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
DChapman wrote:
No, I will not vote for ANYONE who is Republican, you obviously do not know what you're talking about when it comes time to me.
Dude, Palin is the very DEFINITION "anyone who is Republican."
Boy, I tell you - I have never in my life seen so many NRA members of color (or those who may as well be) in one place until I came to this site...
No, let's go back and look at what you said:
Richard Miller wrote:
WOW! This has GOT to be the most partisan thing I have EVER heard in my life! Man, you'll for vote ANYONE who's Republican!
The way I read this, is that I will vote for not only "anyone" who is Republican, but I only vote for Republicans. If this is not so, then you need to stop generalizing and be more clear with what you write.
For the record, who are the NRA members of this site since there are "so many"????? Do not dance around this, I would like an answer verbatim of the "so many NRA members of color (or those who may as well be) in one place..."
Please list the names of all NRA members of this site.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 14 Oct 2008 14:27 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Boy, I tell you - I have never in my life seen so many NRA members of color (or those who may as well be) in one place until I came to this site...
As far as I know the only two here are “Other” and me, though until now I haven't mentioned being a member. I suppose you're assuming ALL Republicans or “conservatives” are NRA members and only Republicans are members of the NRA.
BTW, I know many NRA members of color. Most are apolitical or Democrats. You need to get out more. There are a lot of them out there.
That's because Richard makes these blanket generalizations that he cannot support.
Since Gordon only announced he was an NRA member with this post, I am wondering how Ricahrd Miller knows how there are so many here at The Study of Racialism.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 400 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Tue 14 Oct 2008 14:52 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
Please list the names of all NRA members of this site.
The operative phrase here is "or those who may as well be". Concerning G-Man's response, it would take me awhile to gather up the links, but I can provide to show the MANY ultra-conservative politicians that they've endorsed. I can't think of ONE liberal politician that they've EVER endorsed.
Please list the names of all NRA members of this site.
The operative phrase here is "or those who may as well be".
Those are weasel words, akin to: "Richard Miller may as well be a blooming idiot." The original phrase was borderline ad hominem, unsubstantiated, and attacked the entire site. It was unwise. Given that Miller lacks evidence to back up his thinly veiled accusation, I suggest that he either retract it or at least stop trying to defend it.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 400 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Tue 14 Oct 2008 15:27 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Given that Miller lacks evidence to back up his thinly veiled accusation, I suggest that he either retract it or at least stop trying to defend it.
Again, the key phrase is "or those who may as well be" - I don't know how many NRA members there are on this site. But, living in Texas, I'm actually around quite a few of these redneck mofo's - and many of the people here remind me of them. THAT'S what I'm saying. Now, if you can give me some pointers on how I can provide evidence of people reminding me of others, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
I'm actually around quite a few of these redneck mofo's - and many of the people here remind me of them. THAT'S what I'm saying.
In that case you are in violation of the last sentence of rule 1.2 and all of rule 2.2. The statement that many site members remind you of "redneck mofo's" is ad hominem and does not strive to inform nor to become informed about U.S. racialism. Apparently, my "suggestion" did not work. Please consider this message a formal warning.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 400 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Tue 14 Oct 2008 16:01 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
In that case you are in violation of the last sentence of rule 1.2 and all of rule 2.2. The statement that many site members remind you of "redneck mofo's" is ad hominem and does not strive to inform nor to become informed about U.S. racialism. Apparently, my "suggestion" did not work. Please consider this message a formal warning.
So a post whose sole purpose is to clarify a previous one is still subject to Rule 1.2???
As well, refer to someone in Texas a "redneck mofo", and they'll respond with, "Damn right, and proud of it!" So violation of Rule 2.2 is subject to how you take it in this situation.
refer to someone in Texas a "redneck mofo", and they'll respond with, "Damn right, and proud of it!" So violation of Rule 2.2 is subject to how you take it in this situation.
You have got to be kidding. Take a break until midnight, 20 Oct 2008.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 14 Oct 2008 17:59 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
refer to someone in Texas a "redneck mofo", and they'll respond with, "Damn right, and proud of it!" So violation of Rule 2.2 is subject to how you take it in this situation.
You have got to be kidding. Take a break until midnight, 20 Oct 2008.
You know, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. The only reason why I did not suspend him is because I wanted everyone to see how arrogant and baseless he is on this forum. I gave him the rope and he hung himself. That is the way I like to operate.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 14 Oct 2008 18:01 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Given that Miller lacks evidence to back up his thinly veiled accusation, I suggest that he either retract it or at least stop trying to defend it.
Again, the key phrase is "or those who may as well be" - I don't know how many NRA members there are on this site. But, living in Texas, I'm actually around quite a few of these redneck mofo's - and many of the people here remind me of them. THAT'S what I'm saying. Now, if you can give me some pointers on how I can provide evidence of people reminding me of others, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
This is a typical arrogant, weasel repsonse from you. This is not at all what you said, you said there were "so many NRA members on this site". When you come back, shall we go back and see???
Exactly. Plus you have his assertion that because rednecks he meets in Texas are opposed to his views and people here disagree with him, the people here who disagree with him think exactly like rednecks.
Also, there's the inability to understand that the endorsement of "ultraconservative" politicians by an organization may not be supported by many members of that organization.
Additionally, there's the failure to acknowledge that the endorsements have more to do with the support by these politicians for the Second Amendment, which we all know most liberal politicians do not support.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 14 Oct 2008 22:38 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Exactly. Plus you have his assertion that because rednecks he meets in Texas are opposed to his views and people here disagree with him, the people here who disagree with him think exactly like rednecks.
Also, there's the inability to understand that the endorsement of "ultraconservative" politicians by an organization may not be supported by many members of that organization.
Additionally, there's the failure to acknowledge that the endorsements have more to do with the support by these politicians for the Second Amendment, which we all know most liberal politicians do not support.
Gordon, his behaviour is very sophomoric. I think he has a lot to learn still, just my opinion.....
Boy, I tell you - I have never in my life seen so many NRA members of color (or those who may as well be) in one place until I came to this site...
As far as I know the only two here are “Other” and me, though until now I haven't mentioned being a member. I suppose you're assuming ALL Republicans or “conservatives” are NRA members and only Republicans are members of the NRA.
BTW, I know many NRA members of color. Most are apolitical or Democrats. You need to get out more. There are a lot of them out there.
I never mentioned it, either. You (G-Man), most likely, included me because you know I "pack heat". My husband (also of color) has been a member of the NRA for a few years. I only just recently joined a few months ago.
How out of the ordinary for Richard to make an assumption about people!
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 13:28 Post subject:
This is a funny thread, if you read the editorials in the major newspapers (I keep up with them using Real Clear Politics.com) you will see that left and right wing commentators have trashed Palin, some prominent conservatives...seem to despise her.
McCain said recently in an interview..."his supporters love her" and he does not care if people at Cocktail Parties in Georgetown "get it"...he was talking about Republicans. This is internal Republican Predominately white class warfare between traditional conservatives intellectuals (tend to be fiscal conservatives and foreign policy Hawks) and the more rural less educated more religious wing (cultural conservatives)
Palin was a cynical affirmative action pick.
McCain, I think, does not think much of women...he thought he could sway Hillary Clinton Supporters and keep his base. There were far more qualified Republican women but they are all pro-choice...McCain was on slippery ice with his base already and felt "any woman who is pro-life will do".
Actually the polls now show most women are going to vote for Obama (including white women) Palin did not change that dynamic, in fact more women have moved to Obama since Palin came on board.
McCain's experimentation in identity politics failed. This is not a BASE election, it is an independent's election and McCain putting up someone obviously incompetent at his age, hurt him.
That is McCain - here is why I don't like Palin, I honestly do not believe she is intelligent enough or educated enough (not the same thing) to be president if McCain died (which he has a high chance of doing if he serves 8 years).
Nothing in Sarah Palin's background tells me she is intellectually capable of running the U.S. executive branch. I'm sorry.
Some circumstantial evidence:
She got elected governor of Alaska.
Surely this must demonstrate something? On the other hand, it seems to me like some freak occurrence, and maybe demonstrates the low education of Alaska voters or their frustration of with the "Republican Corruption Machine up there which she ran against) rather than the high IQ of Sarah. Alaska does have a pretty abysmal high school graduation rate. I'm trying to remember where I read it, but I read an article in a major publication on line talking about how educated Alaskans flee the state for better jobs in the lower 48. It is also a society who has more males than females and people are scattered over a territory as large as 1/3 of the continental U.S. but with a population smaller than my county (Fairfax County, VA).
She gave a good speech at the convention.
To what extent is public speaking correlated IQ? The correlation may not be that high. There are lots of high IQ people who are abysmal public speakers, so public speaking is not a highly g-loaded task. Normally, people with IQs below what it takes to get a college education from a 4 year accredited school (about 110 or so) don’t have the opportunity to do much public speaking on a level where many people are watching them because they don’t have much to say or they are not leading anything.
But my guess is that a person with a propensity for public speaking with an IQ of 100 can sound a lot smarter than their IQ if there is a smart person available to put words in her mouth.
(1) She majored in journalism but there’s no evidence that she ever wrote anything significant. It took her over 5 years to graduate from Journalism, which most people would not consider very challenging of a major, especially at Idaho State. Definitely not more challenging than the Engineering at the Naval Academy (McCain), Harvard Law (Obama) or even Law School in Delaware (Biden).
Writing is a highly g-loaded task, so the lack of anything that she’s written could indicate her inability to write at a competent level. Obama wrote two best sellers.
(2) She had to hire an administrator to run the “city” of Wasilla.
Indicates she wasn’t smart enough to run the city herself?
(3) Interest in evangelical Christianity.
People who believe in the literal word of the Bible and get into evangelical Christianity are, on average, less intelligent than mainline Protestants. None religious people, on average, have higher IQs/educational achievement than religious observant people.
Look at the link and look at the evangelistic Christians who tend to be more literalists and their IQ and SATs (which correlate with IQs to an extent)...
Sarah Palin has said she believes Humans and Dinosaurs lived together 6,000 years ago...scary.
If you want to see it, I have more where that came from but on average there is an inverse relationship with fundamentalist Christian doctrine in Western nations and education and IQ.
(4) No intellectual hobbies.
Smart people have intellectual hobbies, most of them anyway. Sarah likes to hunt moose.
Both of Sarah’s parents are school teachers, the quintessential middle class jobs, but Sarah has clearly sunk to prole. Her husband hasn’t graduated from college, Track is not going to college, and Bristol gives no indication of being college-bound. Track getting arrested, and Bristol getting pregnant at 17 are markers of being prole rather than middle class.
My Personal Conclusion
There is no evidence Palin is smart enough to run the United States, although she might be smart enough to run a state like Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, etc.
Her background is clearly one step above white trash and does not indicate any outstanding intellectual ability.
Being elected Gov of Alaska is about as impressive as being elected Mayor of Virginia Beach, VA (which has more people by the way).
If you compare her background to Biden (politically) or Obama (education wise and also look at the accomplishments of many of Obama's parents, and many of his siblings (older brother and sister from Kenya, younger half INdonesian sister)...father went to Harvard before Affirmative Action and got a Master's in Econ, mother got a PhD from University of Hawaii, grandmother was a bank manager at the time many women just aspired to be secretaries and tellers, half brother got a Master's in physics...etc.
I think the circumstantial evidence is Obama is likely as bright as most people give him credit for, Baiden joining the Senate (youngest person ever) and his record...both are far an away more intelligent and educated than Sarah Palin.
I am not an arrogant man. I know myself quite well. I don't want someone "like me" to run this nation. I don't even think i could run a Fortune 500 company, nor would I like to try. I want the best and brightest we can get. I do not want someone like Sarah Palin to run anything, I can speak more authoritatively about foreign policy issues than her and that is just damned pathetic as I don't think I"m capable of being President of the U.S.
This is why (and a lot of other people) don't like her. I would not go as far as hate.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1466 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 14:10 Post subject:
I have my reservations about Palin, but wow, your post is full of elitisms IMO:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Smart people have intellectual hobbies, most of them anyway. Sarah likes to hunt moose.
What's an intellectual hobby, playing chess in the study??? Come on, TR was a hunter and a graduate of Harvard.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Nothing in Sarah Palin's background tells me she is intellectually capable of running the U.S. executive branch. I'm sorry.
Might you have had a similar concern about Harry Truman, who was not college educated at all???
Dragon Horse wrote:
Surely this must demonstrate something? On the other hand, it seems to me like some freak occurrence, and maybe demonstrates the low education of Alaska voters or their frustration of with the "Republican Corruption Machine up there which she ran against) rather than the high IQ of Sarah.
Wow, this is what strikes me as elitist. I mean, an entire state is uneducated because they elected Palin as governor. Where is it written that you must have a high IQ in order to lead effectively. I'm sure all those failures of CEOs on Wall St. have relatively high IQs, and where has that got them....I guess hundreds of millions of dollars they stole and possible prison time.
Dragon Horse wrote:
(2) She had to hire an administrator to run the “city” of Wasilla.
Indicates she wasn’t smart enough to run the city herself?
I don't know how all this IQ and "smart enough has anything to do with te task here....I mean it does, but remember how "smart" Jimmy Carter is/was??? Intellectually, he was most likely the most intellegent President in recent times. Sure did not do him much good as President. What evidence do you have that Palin is not intelligent enough to your standards?
Dragon Horse wrote:
(3) Interest in evangelical Christianity.
People who believe in the literal word of the Bible and get into evangelical Christianity are, on average, less intelligent than mainline Protestants. None religious people, on average, have higher IQs/educational achievement than religious observant people.
Really now??? How many evangelical Christians do you know personally??
This is East Coast elitism is its utmost. I happen to know quite a few Evangelicals, all of whom are college educated. Some are Doctors, engineers, own their own businesses (quite sucessfull I might add).
During my career, the people who run around telling the rest of us how smart they are, always wind up getting into trouble somehow. A little bit of "what goes around, comes around".
The people who are deemed intellectually "not as intellegent", are usually good at other things. If I am broken down on the side of the road, I will have more faith in the guy in the pick up, than the sophisticate in the Lexus.
While I agree that Palin was not the best choice, I see no reason to question her intellectual ability. I do not think she is un-intelligent, that said, being intelligent does not automatically qualify one to be President, Mr.Obama.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If you compare her background to Biden (politically) or Obama (education wise and also look at the accomplishments of many of Obama's parents, and many of his siblings (older brother and sister from Kenya, younger half INdonesian sister)...father went to Harvard before Affirmative Action and got a Master's in Econ, mother got a PhD from University of Hawaii, grandmother was a bank manager at the time many women just aspired to be secretaries and tellers, half brother got a Master's in physics...etc.
So her parents being school teachers is not good enough, intellectually?? Come on. Oh, yeah, they were school teachers in Alaska, not Connecticut.
You forgot about Obama's half brother who lives on the street on less than a dollar a day in Kenya.
Joined: 24 Sep 2008 {Posts: 102 } Location: Santiago, DR
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 14:36 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Actually the polls now show most women are going to vote for Obama (including white women) Palin did not change that dynamic, in fact more women have moved to Obama since Palin came on board.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 14:38 Post subject:
chip wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Actually the polls now show most women are going to vote for Obama (including white women) Palin did not change that dynamic, in fact more women have moved to Obama since Palin came on board.
Palin is viewed favorably by 47% of likely voters and unfavorably by 40%. But her numbers are worse among women than men: 45% of all women surveyed have a negative opinion of Palin, compared to 42% who view her positively. Fifty-two percent of men have a favorable opinion, while 35% are in the unfavorable camp.
Those numbers do not compare well with those of her direct competitor in the general election, Joe Biden. Among women, the Democratic candidate for vice president is viewed positively by 51% and negatively by 27%. Biden has an overall favorable to unfavorable split of 50%-31%, while McCain's is 54%-38% and Obama's rests at an enviable is 60%-33%.
There are more polls, that is just won, if you go to real politics.com and click on the individual state polls or national it will show you all the polls in the catagory...then if you click on the polling company name it will often show you the methodology.
You can see a clear trend in a rise of support of Obama and much of that is women moving to Obama (and men but to a less extent...mostly white males).
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 16 Oct 2008 15:18 Post subject:
DChapman wrote:
I have my reservations about Palin, but wow, your post is full of elitisms IMO:
Dragon Horse wrote:
Smart people have intellectual hobbies, most of them anyway. Sarah likes to hunt moose.
What's an intellectual hobby, playing chess in the study??? Come on, TR was a hunter and a graduate of Harvard.
On average people at Harvard do not hunt. I can find an exception to every rule. I'm talking about the norm not the outlier. As I said, she has no hobbies considered intellectual. She can hunt and also play chess, I have an uncle that does. I fish and have hunted (although I don't consider myself a hunter) and I have a "library" in my home full of books considered to be "intellectual" in nature, I play chess, I listen to classical music...
I'm looking at the totality of her here.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Nothing in Sarah Palin's background tells me she is intellectually capable of running the U.S. executive branch. I'm sorry.
Might you have had a similar concern about Harry Truman, who was not college educated at all???
Different time period. Lets stick to the present. Back in Truman's day very few people even graduated from high school because you did not need a high school education to earn a middle class wage.
Education is a proxy for intelligence (on average) as today education correlates highly with income, that was not true when Truman was a young man. Also since that time more and more people are going to college and anyone who wants to go can go if they have the grades. This was not true in Truman's time.
Dragon Horse wrote:
Surely this must demonstrate something? On the other hand, it seems to me like some freak occurrence, and maybe demonstrates the low education of Alaska voters or their frustration of with the "Republican Corruption Machine up there which she ran against) rather than the high IQ of Sarah.
Wow, this is what strikes me as elitist. I mean, an entire state is uneducated because they elected Palin as governor. Where is it written that you must have a high IQ in order to lead effectively. I'm sure all those failures of CEOs on Wall St. have relatively high IQs, and where has that got them....I guess hundreds of millions of dollars they stole and possible prison time.
I'm not concerned with what you think is elitist or not. I'm not saying that to be smug, what I'm saying is throwing around that term has not meaning to me.
A leader, based on my knowledge of history does not have to be the smartest guy in the room, but he has to be smarter than most people in the room.
High intelligence is important because part of that is the ability to understand complex abstract ideas. A president needs to understand what their Secretaries and advisers are saying and needs a knowledge base to filter that through to make sound judgement. If a person is less intelligent it is less likely they can do that and more likely they will be a puppet by someone who is brighter (example being George W Bush).
Not many people on Wall Street are being accused of "stealing" right now. They are being accused of not properly handling risk, they leveraged all types of money off of risky loans hoping to get a quick payoff, which they did until the bottom fell out. Risk seeking behavior has nothing to do with intelligence. High intelligence just means you can potentially screw up bigger. LOL Intelligence does not automatically make you moral either, but notice these intelligent people are steeling millions or billions not knocking over 7/11s. It takes high intelligence to do one type of theft and not the other.
Dragon Horse wrote:
(2) She had to hire an administrator to run the “city” of Wasilla.
Indicates she wasn’t smart enough to run the city herself?
I don't know how all this IQ and "smart enough has anything to do with te task here....I mean it does, but remember how "smart" Jimmy Carter is/was??? Intellectually, he was most likely the most intelligent President in recent times. Sure did not do him much good as President. What evidence do you have that Palin is not intelligent enough to your standards?
I agree with this. You need intelligence and leadership ability. Obviously there are many Ivy League professors who none of us would want running the country. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were likely also highly intelligent and had leadership ability too.
What I"m saying is that intelligence is not the only factor but if you want to weight variables, to me, it is one of the most important. Palin, I'm sure is a good leader for Alaska, but I don't think her upward ceiling is the Presidency of the U.S. Being an executive of 300 million is not the same as 600 thousand. If so, every mayor of every big city is qualified to be president as they are the executive of well over 600,000 people.
Dragon Horse wrote:
(3) Interest in evangelical Christianity.
People who believe in the literal word of the Bible and get into evangelical Christianity are, on average, less intelligent than mainline Protestants. None religious people, on average, have higher IQs/educational achievement than religious observant people.
Really now??? How many evangelical Christians do you know personally??
This is East Coast elitism is its utmost. I happen to know quite a few Evangelicals, all of whom are college educated. Some are Doctors, engineers, own their own businesses (quite successful I might add).
During my career, the people who run around telling the rest of us how smart they are, always wind up getting into trouble somehow. A little bit of "what goes around, comes around".
The people who are deemed intellectually "not as intelligent", are usually good at other things. If I am broken down on the side of the road, I will have more faith in the guy in the pick up, than the sophisticate in the Lexus.
While I agree that Palin was not the best choice, I see no reason to question her intellectual ability. I do not think she is un-intelligent, that said, being intelligent does not automatically qualify one to be President, Mr.Obama.
I'm not going to get into personal experiences. As I said before, I can find women taller than men, but that does not mean most women are taller than men.
I'm talking about research done using statistical methods to give a broad understanding of the average. I have a cousin who is a Pentecostal Minister who believes women should not wear pants and dancing is a sin unless in religious rapture at a church. He is also pursuing his PhD, but he is obviously not typical.
I also don't care about "east coast elitism". With all due respect to you, let me tell you what I think of "elitism". I think it is all a socio-economic political game invented by white idealogues to demogogue a conversation.
It is a myth made up by neuvou riche who felt bad about their humble upbringings...aka "white trash" who made good who had an inferiority complex and needed a way to keep their self esteem high when they displayed embarrassing white lower class cultural habits in civilized company and were corrected.
This is a white class warfare issue that has little to do with blacks (like me)...this goes back to the beginning of the country where George Washington did not like he was one of the wealthiest men in America but a poorer man of British noble blood got more respect than him and other self-made men. ALthough that is not the situation today...there are reminants in American culture. Even back then many white Americans felt "cultural and morally superior" to the British along these lines...
Those days are gone, but low class white people still want unwarranted/unearned respect for their lack of education and lack of ambition due to "overrated commonsense and moral superiority". Talk about "entitlement complex".
I don't care if a President drinks tea at "tea time" as long as he reps my interests. I'm not so insecure as to think if he is not "like me" than he should not be president...well maybe that is a combination of insecurity and arrogance. I'm not speaking about you directly, but the general premise as I hear expressed in the media and the street.
When I lived in East Asia and on my travels to Europe I notice that everyone wants to be like the "elites", no one holds up the least educated and lower class as "authentic" examples of their culture. THat is an American things. Many blacks due it with ghetto culture holding up the worst of their community as idols and many whites do it with low class rural white culture. If you ask a Frenchman or Japanese to show you are "real" example of their culture they will not take you to some hillbillie area...trust me.
In any case I sourced my claim and can provide more sources. ON average fundamentalist Christians are less intelligent than less observant Christians and that correlates with less education.
Do you want to see more proof of that? I am happy to provide it if you give me about 2 hours.
As far as a mechanic vs a Ivy League Lawyer (I know that was not your exact example)...
Could an Ivy League lawyer learn how to fix a car and do it proficiently if they had no choice (on average, do you think they can learn it?) Lets look at the inverse...can a mechanic do an Ivy League lawyers job proficiently or even graduate from his school? I doubt most could.
Dragon Horse wrote:
If you compare her background to Biden (politically) or Obama (education wise and also look at the accomplishments of many of Obama's parents, and many of his siblings (older brother and sister from Kenya, younger half Indonesian sister)...father went to Harvard before Affirmative Action and got a Master's in Econ, mother got a PhD from University of Hawaii, grandmother was a bank manager at the time many women just aspired to be secretaries and tellers, half brother got a Master's in physics...etc.
So her parents being school teachers is not good enough, intellectually?? Come on. Oh, yeah, they were school teachers in Alaska, not Connecticut.
You forgot about Obama's half brother who lives on the street on less than a dollar a day in Kenya.
No that was not the point. My point was providing circumstantial evidence of intelligence. Intelligence of children strongly correlates with that of siblings and immediate families for some obvious reasons. I don't think it is coincidence that much of Obama's immediate family was highly educated or showed exceptional potential, even his grandfather in Kenya ( a mean guy according to Obama) was a "big man" and wealthy by black Kenyan standards of his day. The only one in his immediate family who was not above above average seemed to be his maternal grandfather..according to his book.
HIs half brother who lives in a dollar a day was by a woman who his father was never married to who had an unfortunate upbringing. If you have 8 kids (believe Obama Sr. had that many) it is not odd for 2 of them to be "losers" but the fact that most of them were highly educated professionals, most of whom grew up with no support from him...says something. I dont' think that was luck. Maybe Obama Sr. gave them the best thing he could...his genes.
In the end I'm not saying Palin is unintelligent. I'm saying she is not intelligent enough to be Commander and Chief of the United States, there is a difference. I'm not saying she is stupid, that she is obviously not.
Last edited by Dragon Horse on Thu 16 Oct 2008 15:32; edited 5 times in total
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
My husband (also of color) has been a member of the NRA for a few years. I only just recently joined a few months ago.
