You know, Kevin, I thought you paid more attention that that.
1: "intellectually incurious" Joe Biden has been in the Senate for 36 years, claims to be a "Constitutional Scholar", and still doesn't know which Article of the Constitution talks about the powers of the Legislative Branch (it's Article 1, the Article that lists ALL of the VP's powers).
If you have no clue what Joe's talking about, he sounds knowledgeable. If you do, he sounds like what he is, an idiot. From the Constitution, to Lebanon, to just about everything else he talked about during the debate, Joe routinely and repeatedly made crap up (list of 22 falsehoods here).
Barack Obama. Do you have even a single example of Obama being thoughtful? About anything? Let's consider his "intellectual history": Won't release his college grades. Won't release his senior thesis (his wife's is poorly written whiny racialist pap). Went through law school without having, so far as anyone can tell, a serious intellectual conversation with anyone (when every thinks you agree with them, you haven't had a real conversation with any of them). Has refused to release his law review article(s) (the one people found is pretty damn bland. I know, because I read it). Taught at the University of Chicago without ever engaging a single conservative there in a discussion of their differing views. Was involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (search the site, he's got tons of links) to improve the education of Chicago children. Program was a failure, because they were more interested in political indoctrination than in actually educating the kids. Been in government since 1996. Doesn't have a single signature issue, has no real accomplishments, was and is pretty much a straight Democrat Ticket Party Line voter (voted with the Democrats 96% of the Time in the US Senate. IIRC, that's the highest rate for any Senator during his time there).
He is such a vapid, doctrinaire lefty that it never even occurred to him that being buddies with an unrepentant anti-American terrorist might drive away voters, or that people might have a problem with him spending 20 years in the pews of a church run by an anti-American bigot.
If that's what you call "intellectually curious", I'll take a hamburger. It at least will offer me something of value.
If you want to see real "lack of intellectual curiosity", look at how the press deals with any issues about Obama, such as his ties to anti-American terrorists. Now that's an solid example of people being "intellectually incurious".
Prop 8: Couldn't you at least honestly describe the Initiative: "The Initiative to reverse the utterly illegitimate abuse of judicial power where 4 CA judges invented a 'right' to Same Sex Marriage"?
Or, do you actually think that the CA State Constitution does contain a right to SSM, somehow placed in there when none of the voters were looking? Because even the 4 thugs on the Court don't actually believe that (if they did, they would have used those parts, rather than "making their case" from State Statutes).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-10-06 05:27 pm (UTC)1: "intellectually incurious"
Joe Biden has been in the Senate for 36 years, claims to be a "Constitutional Scholar", and still doesn't know which Article of the Constitution talks about the powers of the Legislative Branch (it's Article 1, the Article that lists ALL of the VP's powers).
If you have no clue what Joe's talking about, he sounds knowledgeable. If you do, he sounds like what he is, an idiot. From the Constitution, to Lebanon, to just about everything else he talked about during the debate, Joe routinely and repeatedly made crap up (list of 22 falsehoods here).
Barack Obama. Do you have even a single example of Obama being thoughtful? About anything? Let's consider his "intellectual history":
Won't release his college grades. Won't release his senior thesis (his wife's is poorly written whiny racialist pap). Went through law school without having, so far as anyone can tell, a serious intellectual conversation with anyone (when every thinks you agree with them, you haven't had a real conversation with any of them). Has refused to release his law review article(s) (the one people found is pretty damn bland. I know, because I read it). Taught at the University of Chicago without ever engaging a single conservative there in a discussion of their differing views. Was involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (search the site, he's got tons of links) to improve the education of Chicago children. Program was a failure, because they were more interested in political indoctrination than in actually educating the kids. Been in government since 1996. Doesn't have a single signature issue, has no real accomplishments, was and is pretty much a straight Democrat Ticket Party Line voter (voted with the Democrats 96% of the Time in the US Senate. IIRC, that's the highest rate for any Senator during his time there).
He is such a vapid, doctrinaire lefty that it never even occurred to him that being buddies with an unrepentant anti-American terrorist might drive away voters, or that people might have a problem with him spending 20 years in the pews of a church run by an anti-American bigot.
If that's what you call "intellectually curious", I'll take a hamburger. It at least will offer me something of value.
If you want to see real "lack of intellectual curiosity", look at how the press deals with any issues about Obama, such as his ties to anti-American terrorists. Now that's an solid example of people being "intellectually incurious".
Prop 8:
Couldn't you at least honestly describe the Initiative: "The Initiative to reverse the utterly illegitimate abuse of judicial power where 4 CA judges invented a 'right' to Same Sex Marriage"?
Or, do you actually think that the CA State Constitution does contain a right to SSM, somehow placed in there when none of the voters were looking? Because even the 4 thugs on the Court don't actually believe that (if they did, they would have used those parts, rather than "making their case" from State Statutes).