Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    If I had, I don't recall using the term before this. (a quick googling only showed this instance FWIW ...)

    In brief to me it means someone with old fashioned traditional orientation -- one nostalgic for a life and a world that likely never was, and almost certainly will never be again.

    They're as a group more likely to passionately believe things irrespective of facts, and are too often dismissive of knowledge and intelligence when it comes to understanding the cause of a problem -- and a path to a problem's solution.

    They are capable of believing that faith and attitude trump experience and education -- that a junior could be a better steward of america's economy and a better leader for the country than an Al Gore. That a Sara Palin or Christine Odonnell would be better leader than any Democrat.

    They as a group are likely to believe that when same sex couples marry that that challenges their right to marry. They as a group are likely to believe that man cannot be the cause of global climate change. That making the wealthy pay their fair share of the burden of society through taxation, is unfair.

    They can even go to a creationist "museum" in Kentucky and believe that man and dinosaurs walked amongst each other.

    If and when I use that term, that is what I associate ...
    I gotta say, you got your terms mixed up....you did not describe redneck, lol, at least not in the way that most would describe. It's like you're describing a group of folks whose opinion you disagree with, and have decided to call them "rednecks". You apparently just don't like these people and maybe that is the nicest derogatory term you could come up with? How about try again, or maybe find another term for people you don't like?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadavis08 View Post
    im a redneck and proud of it but i also know this world will go nowhere until God is ready for it to and the climate change caused by man is laughable.
    And a virus or bacteria could never hurt a human being, being so small and undetectable without technology. Wait...
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by NickDG View Post
    And a virus or bacteria could never hurt a human being, being so small and undetectable without technology. Wait...
    I've not heard this talked of, but one of the more laughable ironies of tea-baggers running around spouting about the founding fathers original intent etc etc., is that the founding fathers never would have wanted the poorly educated and uninformed to have serious influence in determining the leadership of america. (voting eligible citizens could not directly vote for Senators and Presidents).

    The founding fathers originally designed a system that ensured that leaders were chosen only indirectly by citizens -- and that voting was open only to property owning educated men.

    They would have been appalled both by the ignorance and foolishness of the tea-bagging members -- as well as the leaders the tea-baggers are now advocating on behalf of.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I've not heard this talked of, but one of the more laughable ironies of tea-baggers running around spouting about the founding fathers original intent etc etc., is that the founding fathers never would have wanted the poorly educated and uninformed to have serious influence in determining the leadership of america. (voting eligible citizens could not directly vote for Senators and Presidents).

    The founding fathers originally designed a system that ensured that leaders were chosen only indirectly by citizens -- and that voting was open only to property owning educated men.

    They would have been appalled both by the ignorance and foolishness of the tea-bagging members -- as well as the leaders the tea-baggers are now advocating on behalf of.
    So....you are assuming that people who consider themselves tea-party types are not "property owning educated men"? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? I don't believe there is an actual "tea-party" (at least none that I've seen), but I believe in many of the things the tea-party movement stands for...and....um...well...I own several properties, reasonable income, and while davidra would argue my degree from Clemson isn't worth much, lol, I did graduate from college. So, I'm confused by your comment. I am going out on a limb and assuming that others who believe the government has gotten too big also own property and have been properly educated.

    Since you are clearly more educated than we simple folks, perhaps you can use your skills to better explain what you meant?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    So....you are assuming that people who consider themselves tea-party types are not "property owning educated men"? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? I don't believe there is an actual "tea-party" (at least none that I've seen), but I believe in many of the things the tea-party movement stands for...and....um...well...I own several properties, reasonable income, and while davidra would argue my degree from Clemson isn't worth much, lol, I did graduate from college. So, I'm confused by your comment. I am going out on a limb and assuming that others who believe the government has gotten too big also own property and have been properly educated.

    Since you are clearly more educated than we simple folks, perhaps you can use your skills to better explain what you meant?
    what I meant was that the founding fathers were self consciously educated and progressive elites -- men who were deeply distrustful of the passions and ignorance of common men.

    They would have wanted those who steer america to be highly educated and informed.

    I've talked to tea-baggers at their rallies, I've heard Beck and Palin speak -- I think its clear that the founding fathers would be appalled at the idea that their country had come to be lead and steered by the Beck and Palins, and by the tea-bagging mob they stand at the head of...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #46  
    this thread has gone waaaaay off topic already, But I must say to BARYE that he is completely re-writing American history in his view that the founding fathers wanted protection from the uneducated.

    The system was designed around key principles, but that isn't one of them. They understood the danger of a simple majority (aka mob rule) and there was no practical way to hold a general election when information traveled by horse.

    They intended to:

    1. protect individual rights (by representative govt rather than majority rule)
    2. protect against having a king by ensuring the rule of law
    3. protecting freedom by limiting govt responsibility
    4. protect state freedom by limiting fed govt
    5. ensuring adaptability to fix anything that needed to be changed in the constitution

    probably a few more, but "protection from the uneducated" wasn't on their list.

    the re-writing of American history is fun to watch.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions