« | »

Obama Is An Intellectual – Really He Is!

From where else but the New York Times:

In Writings of Obama, a Philosophy Is Unearthed

October 27, 2010

When the Harvard historian James T. Kloppenberg decided to write about the influences that shaped President Obama’s view of the world, he interviewed the president’s former professors and classmates, combed through his books, essays, and speeches, and even read every article published during the three years Mr. Obama was involved with the Harvard Law Review (“a superb cure for insomnia,” Mr. Kloppenberg said). What he did not do was speak to President Obama.

“He would have had to deny every word,” Mr. Kloppenberg said with a smile. The reason, he explained, is his conclusion that President Obama is a true intellectual — a word that is frequently considered an epithet among populists with a robust suspicion of Ivy League elites.

In New York City last week to give a standing-room-only lecture about his forthcoming intellectual biography, “Reading Obama: Dreams, Hopes, and the American Political Tradition,” Mr. Kloppenberg explained that he sees Mr. Obama as a kind of philosopher president, a rare breed that can be found only a handful of times in American history.

“There’s John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Quincy Adams, then Abraham Lincoln and in the 20th century just Woodrow Wilson,” he said.

To Mr. Kloppenberg the philosophy that has guided President Obama most consistently is pragmatism, a uniquely American system of thought developed at the end of the 19th century by William James, John Dewey and Charles Sanders Peirce. It is a philosophy that grew up after Darwin published his theory of evolution and the Civil War reached its bloody end. More and more people were coming to believe that chance rather than providence guided human affairs, and that dogged certainty led to violence.

Pragmatism maintains that people are constantly devising and updating ideas to navigate the world in which they live; it embraces open-minded experimentation and continuing debate. “It is a philosophy for skeptics, not true believers,” Mr. Kloppenberg said.

And yet Mr. Obama has proved himself to be probably the most closed minded thinker and least compromising and most thoroughly dogmatic political figure we have ever seen on the American stage.

Those who heard Mr. Kloppenberg present his argument at a conference on intellectual history at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center responded with prolonged applause. “The way he traced Obama’s intellectual influences was fascinating for us, given that Obama’s academic background seems so similar to ours,” said Andrew Hartman, a historian at Illinois State University who helped organize the conference.

Mr. Kloppenberg’s interest in the education of Barack Obama began from a distance. He spent 2008, the election year, at the University of Cambridge in England and found himself in lecture halls and at dinner tables trying to explain who this man was.

Did Mr. Kloppenberg  ever get to see Mr. Obama’s transcripts? (Just kidding.)

By the way, we can’t help but notice what an aptly soundly name Kloppenberg is. (It reminds us of the line from the famous British symphony conductor, Thomas Beecham once said about a notorious atonal modern composer: "Stockhausen? Stockhausen? I think I may have stepped in some once.")

Race, temperament and family history are all crucial to understanding the White House’s current occupant, but Mr. Kloppenberg said he chose to focus on one slice of the president’s makeup: his ideas.

In the professor’s analysis the president’s worldview is the product of the country’s long history of extending democracy to disenfranchised groups, as well as the specific ideological upheavals that struck campuses in the 1980s and 1990s. He mentions, for example, that Mr. Obama was at Harvard during “the greatest intellectual ferment in law schools in the 20th century,” when competing theories about race, feminism, realism and constitutional original intent were all battling for ground.

"Ferment" is precisely the right word, too.

Mr. Obama was ultimately drawn to a cluster of ideas known as civic republicanism or deliberative democracy, Mr. Kloppenberg argues in the book, which Princeton University Press will publish on Sunday. In this view the founding fathers cared as much about continuing a discussion over how to advance the common good as they did about ensuring freedom.

They just never bothered to write any of their feelings along these lines down. But with the right amount of imagination, one can easily make up all most anything.

Taking his cue from Madison, Mr. Obama writes in his 2006 book “The Audacity of Hope” that the constitutional framework is “designed to force us into a conversation,” that it offers “a way by which we argue about our future.” This notion of a living document is directly at odds with the conception of Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court, who has spoken of “the good, old dead Constitution.”

Mr. Kloppenberg’s entire argument appears to be entirely based on a few paragraphs from Mr. Obama’s second autobiography, ‘The Audacity Of Hope,’ which we have appended below.

Mr. Kloppenberg compiled a long list of people who he said helped shape Mr. Obama’s thinking and writing, including Weber and Nietzsche, Thoreau and Emerson, Langston Hughes and Ralph Ellison.

Sorry, but it is simply laughable to put the poet Langston Hughes and the novelist Ralph Ellison on any list with the others. Mr. Kloppenberg would appear to be a pea brain, to put it nicely.

Contemporary scholars like the historian Gordon Wood, the philosophers John Rawls and Hilary Putnam, the anthropologist Clifford Geertz and the legal theorists Martha Minow and Cass Sunstein (who is now working at the White House) also have a place.

Despite the detailed examination, Mr. Kloppenberg concedes that President Obama remains something of a mystery.

“To critics on the left he seems a tragic failure, a man with so much potential who has not fulfilled the promise of change that partisans predicted for his presidency,” he said. “To the right he is a frightening success, a man who has transformed the federal government and ruined the economy.”

Where did they ever get such a crazy idea?

He finds both assessments flawed. Conservatives who argue that Mr. Obama is a socialist or an anti-colonialist (as Dinesh D’Souza does in his book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”) are far off the mark, he said.

“Adams and Jefferson were the only anti-colonialists whom Obama has been affected by,” he told the audience in New York. “He has a profound love of America.”

He sure has an odd way of showing it. Still, Mr. Kloppenberg has made his pronouncement. And we must all bow down.

In fact, any casual reading of Audacity, which is the only place where Obama even bothers to mention the founding fathers, reveals that Obama has a "Cliff Notes" understanding of the framers at best.

And his opposition to inequality stems from Puritan preachers and the social gospel rather than socialism.

Mr. Obama never met a preacher or read about the "social gospel" — whatever that is — until he met Reverend Wright as a full grown adult and long after he had fully embraced socialism.

Besides, as we have oft noted, Mr. Wright’s so-called "Christianity" has very little to do with religion and everything to do with Marxist ‘Black Liberation Theology.’

As for liberal critics, Mr. Kloppenberg took pains to differentiate the president’s philosophical pragmatism, which assumes that change emerges over decades, from the kind of “vulgar pragmatism” practiced by politicians looking only for expedient compromise. (He gave former President Bill Clinton’s strategy of “triangulation” as an example.)

In other words, Obama’s is a kind of pragmatism which brooks no compromise. Isn’t it funny that even Mr. Kloppenberg has figured out that.

Not all of the disappointed liberals who attended the lecture in New York were convinced that that distinction can be made so easily. T. J. Jackson Lears, a historian at Rutgers University, wrote in an e-mail that by “showing that Obama comes out of a tradition of philosophical pragmatism, he actually provided a basis for criticizing Obama’s slide into vulgar pragmatism.”

And despite Mr. Kloppenberg’s focus on the president’s intellectual evolution, most listeners wanted to talk about his political record.

“There seemed to be skepticism regarding whether Obama’s intellectual background actually translated into policies that the mostly left-leaning audience could get behind,” Mr. Hartman said. “Several audience members, myself included, probably view Obama the president as a centrist like Clinton rather than a progressive intellectual as painted by Kloppenberg.”

Oh, he’s a "centrist," all right. A "centrist" of the Hugo Chavez school.

Still, what an amusing article. Naturally, Mr. Kloppenberg is the chairman of history department at Harvard University. Only a professor could stack ‘Stockhausen’ that high.

Of course, the truly sad thing is that Mr. Obama can’t even fake being an intellectual. After all, how many "intellectuals" wouldn’t know how to pronounce the word "corps"? How many would commit the thousand of other gaffes he has been prone to?

But we must continue the pretense that all conservatives are stupid and all liberals are geniuses. Otherwise, there just wouldn’t be any explanation as to why they are always so obviously wrong and laughably out of touch.

For the record, here is aforementioned excerpt from Mr. Obama’s second autobiography, ‘The Audacity Of Hope,’ pp 55-56:

The answer I settle on—which is by no means original to me—requires a shift in metaphors, one that sees our democracy not as a house to be built, but as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison’s design is not that it provides us a fixed blueprint for action, the way a draftsman plots a building’s construction. It provides us with a framework and with rules, but fidelity to these rules will not guarantee a just society or assure agreement on what’s right. It won’t tell us whether abortion is good or bad, a decision for a woman to make or a decision for a legislature. Nor will it tell us whether school prayer is better than no prayer at all.

What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery—its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights—are designed to force us into a conversation, a “deliberative democracy” in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality, persuading others of their point of view, and building shifting alliances of consent. Because power in our government is so diffuse, the process of making law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right and to sometimes change our minds; it challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly, and suggests that both our individual and collective judgments are at once legitimate and highly fallible.

The historical record supports such a view. After all, if there was one impulse shared by all the Founders, it was a rejection of all forms of absolute authority, whether the king, the theocrat, the general, the oligarch, the dictator, the majority, or anyone else who claims to make choices for us. George Washington declined Caesar’s crown because of this impulse, and stepped down after two terms. Hamilton’s plans for leading a New Army foundered and Adams’s reputation after the Alien and Sedition Acts suffered for failing to abide by this impulse. It was Jefferson, not some liberal judge in the sixties, who called for a wall between church and state—and if we have declined to heed Jefferson’s advice to engage in a revolution every two or three generations, it’s only because the Constitution itself proved a sufficient defense against tyranny.

It’s not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism,” any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course, or drive both majorities and minorities into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the gulag, or the jihad. The Founders may have trusted in God, but true to the Enlightenment spirit, they also trusted in the minds and senses that God had given them. They were suspicious of abstraction and liked asking questions, which is why at every turn in our early history theory yielded to fact and necessity. Jefferson helped consolidate the power of the national government even as he claimed to deplore and reject such power. Adams’s ideal of a politics grounded solely in the public interest—a politics without politics—was proven obsolete the moment Washington stepped down from office. It may be the vision of the Founders that inspires us, but it was their realism, their practicality and flexibility and curiosity, that ensured the Union’s survival.

You see, the Constitution is a ‘living document’!

What an amazingly original thought from such a towering intellect.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, October 28th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

57 Responses to “Obama Is An Intellectual – Really He Is!”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    This author is actually more in love with his own “intellectualism” than he is with the boy-king’s. Another “not seeing the forest for the trees” type. Trying to explain the general by citing the specific but…clearly one has nothing to do with the other and is mostly fabrication in his own mind. In other words, he’s nuts.

    Obama “profoundly loves America” the way a hunter “profoundly loves a duck” as a target to be shot down in flight. But unlike the hunter who may prepare the bird in a culinary way, Obama would prefer the nation lay there, dead, by his own hand.

    That’s where the profundity truly lies. He hates this nation so much he can’t wait to show everyone again just how much. Every move he makes, everything he says is laced with seething hatred and anger. It is what has kept him whole all this time. Hate is an all-consuming thing and it seeks out other haters. It is not only destructive of whatever is the hater’s focus, but of the hater himself.

    He has written his own political epitaph. “Here rests the political career of Obama; He hated this nation and it showed”.

    • Mithrandir says:

      This author is actually more in love with his own “intellectualism”….

      I know, it’s Keith Olbermann syndrome. Obama has a bad case of this too.

      Soliloquy: an utterance or discourse by a person who is talking to himself or herself or is disregardful of or oblivious to any hearers present. The act of talking while or as if alone.

      I am sure these people read their own columns or monologues over and over again, and are so proud of themselves, they could care a less if anyone else is reading/listening at all.


  2. proreason says:

    What’s the mystery?

    Grandma was a commie. Granpa was a commie (and a spy). Mommy was a commie (and an america-hater). Daddy was a commie (and a bigamist). Step Daddy was a commie. The guy that buggered him when he was 12 in Hawaii was a commie. He was a commie at Occidental. He was a commie at Columbia. Community Organizers are all commies. He was a commie at Harvard. Bill Ayers is a commie. Rev Wright is a commie. Valerie Jarett is a commie. Axelrod is a commie.

    I’m going with the theory that he is a commie.

    • Right of the People says:

      If it walks like a commie
      Talks like a commie
      It must be a commie

      Anybody can tell after listening to the boy king away from his teleprompter for two minutes that he is as much an intellectual as Barney Fwanks is a heterosexual.

    • jobeth says:

      Simple to me….

      WHY oh WHY can’t the rest of the world add 2 + 2 and get 4?

      “lets look everywhere for the truth…except the obvious places…like background and education and past behavior” Duh!!!!

      “No, let just get awestruck at how he reads from a lying teleprompter.”

      More than anything I think this blindness by so many people makes me nuts! I just want to shake them!!!!!

    • Mithrandir says:

      There is a clear difference between, the elites, the intellectual world, and REALITY.

      Obama: “It’s not like we’re not keeping score here!” I am sure this guy is trying to move up the ladder, get his points, and be recognized in liberal circles. You never know how it will pay off later. Nobody else, no normal people, believe this nonsense.

      With Democrats, it’s all a point system, they are trying to flatter each other to prove their worth, to climb the greasy pole of politics. They bash Republicans to gain points, get their lib-credentials. It’s all a lie either way, but they don’t care, they want recognition and power.

  3. JohnMG says:

    …..”Mr. Obama can’t even fake being an intellectual”…….

    Perhaps Mr. Kloppenberg got the wrong page in his thesaurus. ‘Ineffectual’ would more appropriately fit the Obama model.

    …..”But we must continue the pretense that all conservatives are stupid and all liberals are geniuses”…..

    Which should account for the fact that most (over 70%) people identify themselves as conservatives vs. liberal. I mean, who wants to be considered a genius, right?? That proves we’re stupid.

    • Mithrandir says:

      That’s right. Believe the lie, or you’re a racist. Go along to get along, or the focus of attention will be on you, and you can defend yourself against baseless attacks.

      That is how socialism works, hide it behind blacks, women, children etc. and when you oppose socialism, you will be branded as against blacks, women, and children. That’s the trick, and trap for you.

  4. Liberals Demise says:

    Kloppenbooger is a simple “TURD” polisher and ass kisser.”
    Personally……..dingleBarry is a snooty little shiite and a boring conversationalist. Filled with er’s and uh’s.

    Is that ‘Intellectual’ enough for you?

  5. BigOil says:

    We should expect an unbiased evaluation from a Hawvard history professor. After all, he is probably not the most liberal person on the planet, that would a Hawvard sociology professor.

    Calling Obama an intellectual is good for a laugh. Brevity is the soul of wit – and Barry can’t answer a yes or no question in less than 10 minutes

  6. Papa Louie says:

    “After all, if there was one impulse shared by all the Founders, it was a rejection of all forms of absolute authority…”

    The idea that our democracy is “a conversation to be had” and that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ sounds nice. But what liberals mean by that boils down to the concept that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. The court’s conversation is the only one that matters. A handful of judges have now become the “absolute authority” rejected by the Founders.

    The Constitution is only flexible when it comes to the interpretation of judges. But once they speak, it becomes a rigid precedent that cannot be changed, even by the will of the majority. If the people try to reign in the power of judges, for example by defining marraige, the judges are free to simply toss out the will of the people as a violation of the judges’ rigid views on the meaning of the constitution. So much for a “living constitution”. So much for the people being allowed to participate in the “conversation” that is our democracy.

    • Petronius says:

      Papa Louie : “The Constitution is only flexible when it comes to the interpretation of judges. But once they speak, it becomes a rigid precedent that cannot be changed, even by the will of the majority.”


      Liberal activist judges transgress the Constitution almost on a daily basis. They do not consider themselves to be bound by the Constitution and laws, notwithstanding their oath of office. Indeed, Liberals are not bound by constitutions, statutes, precedents, customs, rules, regulations, traditions, charters, political systems, ancient institutions, religion, ethics, prudence, common sense, decency, or even reality. Liberals recognize no limits to their ideology. They do what they please, when they please.

      However –– once they have inserted an element of their ideology into the law, it becomes enshrined there as binding precedent. It becomes “settled law” –– as they so often remind us (Roe v Wade, etc.). The law, once infected with Liberal morality, cannot thereafter be challenged or disturbed. Liberals enshrine it as final for all time, or at least until Liberal ideology suggests reason to change it.

      If a lower court judge –– i.e., a non-ideological judge –– questions the basis for a constitutional right to, say, an abortion, or affirmative action, or free public services for illegal aliens, or voting by foreigners, or Miranda warnings for foreign terrorists, or open homosexuality in the military, or the requirement for mandatory health insurance, or whatever, none of which are authorized by the Constitution, then his career is immediately placed in jeopardy. He is thereafter deemed disqualified by the Senate Judiciary Committee for advancement to a position on a higher Federal court.

      G. K. Chesterton said : “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

      On a serious note, the future business of conservatives ought to be to correct mistakes made by Liberals wherever possible, including overturning stupid court decisions, blocking the appointment of Liberal activist judges, and removing them from the bench.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      And such is the problem with interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment…take your example of marriage. If the principle of marriage between a man and a woman is based on religion, can the courts properly uphold restrictions otherwise?

      Also, keep in mind that interracial marriage was not allowed in all 50 states until the 14th Amendment was invoked in Loving in 1967 (laws against this, however, remained on the books in in some states, albeit unenforceable, until 2000).

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Your head must be ready to explode with all that data in your head, Adam.

    • Mae says:

      No, Adam. The principle of marriage is not based on religion. It is based upon biology, male/female physiology and psychology, thousands of years of tradition in ALL cultures. Nowhere in history is marriage based upon anything but male/female partnerships. All studies have shown that the human race comes from two people–a man and a woman. Not two guys. Not two gals. It started there, Adam. Please cease trying to justify your own proclivities.

    • JohnMG says:

      Yeah, Adam. What Mae said; God created Adam and Eve to be mates–not Adam and Steve.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      @JohnMG – but that idea comes from religion – not the sciences. There is no proof that God created man and woman – in fact, the first organisms were both. Sexes came much later.

      Marriage is religion – the government is in the business of performing unions. In fact, under what authority is government even in the marriage business? (I would want the government out of the business altogether, except as a clearinghouse to prevent polygamy.) The 14th Amendment should have been better worded to specifically exclude marriage.

    • JohnMG says:


      Under what authority is the government even in the business of performing unions?

      Read the Constitution, the foundation for our whole system of government. The CREATOR gave us our unalienable rights. The framers said so, and based all our laws on the natural law, which was God’s law. The government only licenses/sanctions/performs/regulates that which it seeks to tax, and thus control.

      And in the next breath you try to separate that which you refuse even exists. God made things the way they are–including the scientists and their god of science which they use to disclaim that which they can’t explain.

      Surely even you can understand that if we weren’t meant to be male and female and to procreate, the human race would have ceased to exist a long time ago. And governments, which came well after the expansion of the population, looked at marriage and thought it a good idea, so they began to sanction and codify it. Just because a bunch of egg-heads can’t explain it away doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

      If we all came about because two vast gaseous substances came together and created an explosion, what (who) created the gases?

      Religion(s) form governments. Not the other way around.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Hey Adam I have an idea. Why don’t you go worship your religion by f***ing yourself.

      Way to ignore Mae’s points and go right back to the garbage. Real intellectual, just like Obama.

      Every vapid comment from you is mental masturbation without a climax, and you just keep wanting us to join in so we’ll lose focus. Give it up.

      Apologies for the language, everyone. Difficult to remain tranquil living in a nightmare, with ignorant goons constantly threading needles under your skin.

    • Mae says:

      Adam, when you say “religion,” you really just mean Christianity (along with Judaism, the elder brother). Male/female marriage is, of course, approved by the other religions of the world, too. But that is not the justification for male/female partnerships. If there is such universal support for this tradition, why? It certainly is not close-mindedness. Good grief, we have to slog through all kinds of stuff if we wish to graduate from any school of higher learning. My advice is to start reading something other than writings that confirm your suppositions such as science having PROVEN that we come from an organism somewhere. There is nothing quite as beautiful on this earth as that of male/female union, both physical and emotional. It is the way humankind is made. It is sad, indeed, that you have deprived yourself of such happiness.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      @Mae – I mean all religion and Islam…yes I said all religion and Islam.

  7. Petronius says:

    Snapshots of the career of a true intellectual :

    punish enemies…. Martha’s Vineyard…. ride bicycle…. eat lobster…. play golf…. ice cream…. bash Bush…. recovery summer…. no jobs…. flying imam…. soldiers die…. photo op…. open borders…. drug wars…. sue Arpaio…. Ramadan speech…. change history…. tell lies…. build mosque…. sue Arizona…. no jobs…. Times Square…. T-shirt vendor…. heal planet…. vacation Spain…. beach club…. visit king…. posh hotel…. sixty rooms…. ice cream…. no jobs…. steal money…. redistribute wealth…. free Panthers…. fire McChrystal…. plug hole…. no jobs…. Florida vacation…. buy shrimp…. play golf…. ice cream…. go swimming…. make speech…. tell lies…. blame Bush…. stimulus bill…. redistribute wealth…. no jobs…. play basketball…. diss Israel…. Maine vacation…. eat lobster…. go hiking…. play golf…. ice cream…. no jobs…. Gulf vacation…. walk beach…. eat shrimp…. bash Bush…. tell lies…. drilling moratorium…. beer summit…. appoint Elena…. play golf…. no jobs…. stimulus bill…. redistribute wealth…. Broadway date…. diss Arizona…. play golf…. diss Netanyahu…. eat hamburger…. shakedown BP…. steal money…. no jobs…. Hawaii vacation…. ride bicycle…. play golf…. underpants bomber…. Dutch passenger…. go swimming…. play golf…. more golf…. no jobs…. drilling moratorium…. massive deficit…. make speech…. bash Bush…. tell lies…. medical industry…. redistribute health…. diss Humana…. tell lies…. play golf…. diss Britain…. Chicago vacation…. play basketball…. no jobs…. pizza chef…. play basketball…. Major Hassan…. soldiers die…. Kobe steaks…. play golf…. play basketball…. open borders…. celebrate Mexico…. state dinner…. Cairo speech…. rewrite history…. praise Islam…. blame America…. bow here…. bow there…. play golf…. Manhattan flyby…. shakedown pharmaceuticals…. diss bankers…. diss Fox…. Carolina vacation…. eat barbecue…. ice cream…. play golf…. appoint Sonia…. Chrysler dealers…. no jobs…. diss Poland…. diss Germany…. diss Britain…. cuddle Queen…. play golf…. student loans…. “I won”…. diss CIA…. Georgetown speech…. diss Jesus…. tell lies…. blame Bush…. no jobs…. huge deficit…. GM bondholders…. steal money…. Chrysler bondholders…. steal money…. UAW payoff…. steal money…. tour Europe…. make speech…. blame Bush…. praise Islam…. blame America…. free terrorists…. prosecute SEALs…. no jobs…. pass stimulus…. redistribute wealth…. diss Vatican…. change climate…. diss AIG…. play golf…. diss Britain…. shovel ready…. play golf…. no jobs…. Nobel Prize….

  8. wardmama4 says:

    -‘a superb cure for insomnia’- Anyone who believes or implies that reading college law review articles is a cure for insomnia is truly a sad individual indeed. And please someone explain to me how reading other people’s law writing is in any way an insight into The Won? Only perhaps into the mindset as to what he viewed as important while a law ‘student’.

    I find it mystical that this one man and one man only appears to be the only person allowed such access to The Won’s past – I wonder why? I guess The Won figures how wonderful it will be for the stupid masses to be reminded how perfect and above them he is – most especially 2 days (Morning shows everyone) before the mid-term election (and this inquiring mind wants to know, how many books are released on a Sunday – most especially historical . . . .(sorry I had to stop laughing) political drivel)? I shall counter this abomination by going out and buying President Bush’s book on Sunday.

    And of course by voting on Tuesday – Remember in NOvember – Take Back America.

    Oh and btw – what is it with this sudden The Won and everyone connected with him going (40 planes people) to India 2 days after the election? While I applaud (and pray they never return to America) the decision to leave America – in the midst of school – why are they taking the spawn out of school and so damn many people?

    God Help America
    A Proud American Infidel

  9. jamieos says:

    @ petronius – Zero is nothing more than a would be playboy, and when the money – and the job – runs out, what then? He hasn’t got the smarts or the preparation to hold any real job in the universe. He would imho be turned down by Walmart.

  10. Mae says:

    Word Origin & History

    late 14c., from L. intellectualis, from intellectus “discernment, understanding,” from pp. stem of intelligere “to understand, discern” (see intelligence). As a noun, attested from 1590s, “mind, intellect;” sense of “an intellectual person” is from 1650s. Intellectual property attested from 1845.
    Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

    Where, pray tell, has Obama ever shown discernment. Hasn’t happened. Won’t happen.

    My Daddy used to say that an intellectual is a person who can calmly discuss a subject in a manner that is understood by everyone he meets, no matter the class or station in life. Daddy would have thought Obama a dope.

  11. MZmaj7 says:

    The author mistakes philosophical pragmatism for educational openness, which is itself a dubious label for Obama.

    The philosophy that has subsequently manifested, according to the article, remains firmly planted in progressivism. …What brilliant insight…

    Anyway, Steve, is there an intellectual pursuit you haven’t dabbled in?? Your allusions and comments here reflect a more impressive range than the usual.

  12. Mithrandir says:

    The Democrat marketing machine NEVER stops does it?

    ~Cover up his Marxism, by talking about the economy.
    ~Deny his racism.
    ~Cover up his mother’s communism, and father’s socialism.
    ~Lie about collusion with 60s radicals, and racist reverends.
    ~Distract the public with smears against opponent, putting them on the defensive.
    ~Label your opponents: Racist, Crazy, Kooky, Bimbo, Bible-Thumper, Sexist, Anti-American.
    ~Get media to dump all your talking points.

    ~Later, revise revise revise.(We will fix all the past mistakes with future editing) The public memory is short, keep feeding revisions until people believe the revisions.
    ~Publish book that covers up controversial subjects.
    ~Put on t.v. episode, or movie that Hollywoodizes reality.

  13. canary says:

    Mr. Kloppenberg should have read the acknowledgments at the end of Obama’s Hope book, and seen that Obama deliberately did not write it so any errors could be blamed on dozens of those that actually wrote it.
    Obama has not show intelligence in anyways.
    The “brilliant” description of Obama has absolutely nothing to back it up. Obama has shown no common sense, no concrete solutions, never read the health bill he shoved down throats, knows nothing about the war, knows nothing on how to solve problems. He just knows how to b.s.

    Does Mr Kloppenberg really believe Obama can quote what people did, and describe them even before his birth as he does in Dreams?

    Mr. Kloppenberg is probably getting paid by Harvard or Obama to wright some slick b.s.

    Further, I do not believe Kloppenberg picked up on Obama’s inability to write his first book either. And Obama admitted he wrote bad poetry. Examples of his poetry were the kind that did not rhyme. A first grader could have written them. What has Obama invented?
    What business did he start & prosper. What cure of an illness did he find. Where the bleeping fuel replacement he expects someone else to come up with. When did he fix a car, a leaky sink, or win a reward (except the noble peace prize. All honors have been bogus. What prodigy did he create. No telling how well he made an ice-cream cone. And getting students to recycle was genius. He was just good at bullying & pressuring people, and getting them to work for him. Period.

  14. Mithrandir says:

    It is just amazing, the lengths the liberal media will go to praise this guy. They have already compared him to every great icon that has ever lived (rolled into one). Now they keep digging (read: lying) into his past to….VIOLA! find even more things to praise him about!

    Doesn’t it strike anyone as absurd that “A Philosophy Is Unearthed?” –You mean, you had to actually LOOK for one? Isn’t this automatic and self-evident of a president? To me, it says, “The guy is lost, in over his head, unable to articulate his position other than his talking points on the campaign trail, so I will write an article that say this guy DOES have a position on things. He has a ‘philosophy’ as all Harvard, affirmative action appointments do. People are too stupid to understand this guy (same arguments made for Gore, Clinton, and other liberals), so we need to write an article about what a great mind he is.

    Another article in favor of our “Edsel President” or, the over exposed, over-hyped product everyone is sick of.

    This is another liberal trick: talk, throw out your liberal code-words, and Newspeak, and anyone that doesn’t get it, is just a dullard. –Dont’ question it, and don’t ask for detail, or you will look stupid.

  15. Natural Born Citizen says:

    There is a difference between booksmart, and streetsmart. BHO/BS is definetly not streetsmart ( his dog BO has more street smarts then he does and a clearer lineage by the way also). For someone who portrays himself as being booksmart he sure has made quite a few gaffes; 57 states in the US, the beer summit, spouting off on the GZM and then walking his statement back etc…. Without his teleprompter he comes off as a psudo-intellectual, arrogant, racist, jackass.

    • proreason says:

      Is there a difference between bookdumb and streetdumb?

      That might be something worth debating about the Moron.

  16. dannyvabchva says:

    The only president I would compare O to is Jimmy Carter. O may have brain sence but he sure doesn’t have any good old American cents. He is a giant amoung no brainers.

  17. canary says:

    Adam @JohnMG – but that idea comes from religion – not the sciences. There is no proof that God created man and woman – in fact, the first organisms were both. Sexes came much later.

    1. “but that idea comes from religion – not the sciences”

    nothing can be further from the truth as homosexuality was considered abnormal sexual behavior.

    2. “There is no proof that God created man and woman – in fact, the first organisms were both. Sexes came much later.”

    Wrong story goes God created man & woman and their told to multiply

    3. in fact, the first organisms were both. Sexes came much later.”

    fact? Where is this evidence anywhere. Animals were paired male & female, and still are. The male sea horse may have the baby, but he still needs the mommy. Where on earth did you come up with these facts? Were there all these asexual sponge bobs blobs & one day some of the sponges started growing hole & things for milk, and other sponges started growing bananas. Or did bananas start showing up floating about and sticking on some sponges, and poking holes in other sponges?

    Has scientists been able to make a female’s egg in a tube become a baby on it’s own?

    Even plants are being genetically grown not to be able
    to give seeds & pollinate, so people are forced to buy a tree at a nursery.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      On the last one – the simplest animals have both sex organs on them (think animals simpler than annelids).

      Sponges are animals in the strict scientific definition of the word; they are the only animals who are stationary.

      Plants can self-pollinate in many cases; only a few species have true male and true females.

    • canary says:

      Adam you did not answer my questions, and humans are not animals. You are irrational.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      #1 – what lifestyle one chooses is irrelevant – so long as (s)he does not force it on others in society who are unwilling.

      #2/3 – man and woman have only existed since the Pleistocene era (and the first primates only date back to just after the dinosaurs went extinct)…I do believe the Big Bang theory more than the Bible, although I do believe in other parts of the Bible besides the first chapters of the Book of Genesis (generally starting with late Abraham into Isaac after the Sodom and Gomorrah).

      The first organisms were aquatic and unicellular and only later on did they become terrestrial and many-celled (after land masses began to develop).

      Humans absolutely are animals insofar as the sciences define the term – the difference between other animals (and to a lesser extent, other primates) and humans is the ability to think critically, infer, reason, and rationalize.

      And plants (with only a handful of exceptions where there are distinct male and female plants) can give seeds and pollinate…that was the very subject of a graduate science course I recently took. It’s a bit harder for trees and other perennial plants, but it can be done. How else can the process of reclamation be explained?

      The Bible isn’t a history book, and when it can’t be reconciled with science, I take science over the Bible.

  18. canary says:

    dannyvabchva. Obama has the same weaknesses, anti-military, weak on National Security, but
    Obama is closer to Hitler as a leader. America’s little hitler.

  19. tranquil.night says:

    Talk a little Marx to the unions by getting em control of big auto and bailing out all the pensions, then employ a lot of Alinsky against all political opponents and private big business sectors already in your back pocket. Throw in some Keynesian monetary policy to pay-off your Stalinist buddies, mix it with some enviro-fascist regulatory policy. Let all the ingredients settle in, then finish stirring the pot and working out all the “impurities” and the final result is something resembling Chinese bureaucratic (not just economic but political) command and control and European liberal socialism.

    Voila, pragmatic radicalism.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      It wouldn’t be the case if the voters were educated and made to think for themselves on the issues.

      I’m surprised that that isn’t made a critical issue in this election and future elections – buying up loads of out-of-home advertisements to tell voters to “know before you go” (to the polls).

      Not sure where you are tranquil.night, but do you realize how easily the right of center could get its message across through it? (I don’t work for any out-of-home ad firm.)

  20. canary says:

    Adam, your post on lifestyles being irrelevant is irrelevant to my post. Fish being created first is in the chapter you don’t believe in.

    Scientists do not refer to human beings as animals. If humans believe they are animals then there is no reason to act like a human being, and there would be no civilization.

    Old question that you can not answer is how the atom, cells, etc. were created.

    Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible which is a historical account that does not go back to millions & billions of years ago, which no scientist has the tool to measure anything that long ago. Even the tree ring
    theory to a trees age is no longer accurate. And I do not think you understand the hybrid plants that are being done, which could be done with humans, but human cloning is not a good idea.

    Marriage is religion for people to keep human beings committed and to raise families. It is in human beings to love and want to be loved. Most animals could care less, and only perform seasonal reproduction.

    Adam you seem to put things in boxes. Your former insistence in previous posts that parents are to blame for how children turn out behavior wise. I do believe you went down to parents being 98% responsible, and so answer this one. If you believe in Science, and you believe Science considers human beings animals, than how are animals 100, 99, or 98 percent responsible for how their brood or offspring turn out.

    Adam you contradict yourself when you say you are against polygamy. Since you believe Science says humans are animals, and “LIFESTYLES ARE IRRELEVANT” than why on earth do you believe the government should the government should prevent polygamy. I also assume you believe the govt should outlaw marriage between parent & child, marriage between siblings, etc. Strange religion teaches this.
    So there is some good from religion. Animals do not have religious beliefs (I like to believe animals go to and are in heaven, which is my business) by animals do not follow any religious traditions or beliefs.

    So, Adam. Your parents are at least 98% (as you have said repeatedly in past posts) then that would mean you are the way you are because of the way your parents raised you? Weird. You are irrational.

    • mr_bill says:

      Adam is in college and is constantly surrounded by “intellectuals” and “academics.” He has liberalism piped into his brain countless hours every week and hasn’t had much experience in the real world yet. Of course he is going to present some collegiate pseudo-sophistry and pretend it is wisdom, he hasn’t experienced anything else in his life yet. Give him ten years in “the real world” and things will change a bit. My biggest gripe about Adam isn’t his positions, because I know they will change as he matures and starts working, paying taxes, has a family, etc. I dislike Adam’s posts because he doesn’t post to exchange knowledge, he posts to provoke other posters and incite a response. He is one of those who is couched in so much “intellectualism” that he doesn’t know how much he doesn’t know, yet feels the necessity to condescend to everybody else and “educate” us all because none of us could possibly be as wise as a B student in college. From the sounds of some of the things he says, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he is in graduate school, has never spent ten seconds working, and plans to pursue a “career in academia.”

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      There’s theory and then there’s when you actually get dogs__t on your shoes.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      @mr_bill – but I don’t think like them for the most part.

      I am in graduate school, but my career would be in research.

    • mr_bill says:

      I rest my case.

  21. canary says:

    Adam/”I am in graduate school, but my career would be in research.”

    Adam, try to learn not to do what the scientists did to global warming. So far your research is over the top. Stop watching cartoons & using college data bases.

  22. David says:

    These comments have seemed to go on an Adam tangent.
    For my two cents as a student in graduate school, also planning to do research. I think it important that we don’t perpetuate the myth of the anti-intellectual conservative. The truth is that conservatism is intellectually and logically superior to liberalism. There is no need to throw rocks at the ivory tower because of the unqualified who have placed themselves on it unjustly. What we need to do is reclaim our rightful place by recognizing the deep philosophical roots and brilliant minds that have articulated the conservative principles in the past and currently. Playing into the democrat style class warfare only serves do divide the movement.

    • proreason says:

      No offense intended David, but what does “doing research” mean? I’m not pulling your leg, I’m just not sure whether it is kind of a generic description of graduate-level studies, or whether research has grown so complex that it is itself a major field of study.

      In a related question, can students still study or must they first study about studying? (that one is a joke)

    • David says:

      A big part of “research” to me is expanding “research”. Every paper ends with something like “and while we have shown this result, further research is needed…” It is the type of work that can never be finished because once it is, there is no more funding. My particular field is estimating the consequence of faults in complex systems like satellites, UAVs, Nuke plants etc. using design-stage (rough) simulations. However, a lot of the time is spent trying to solve the problems that are keeping us from solving the original problem.
      “Doing research” is VERY vague though, and I think it is because of the variety of topics it covers. Like thoroughly evaluating and keeping up to date with cutting edge research done by others and conducting your own analysis. Unfortunately, the American business model has moved away from funding research that doesn’t make a profit in 2-5 years.
      While there is clearly no Constitutional basis for government supporting research through National Science Foundation, NASA, Military research offices, and DARPA. however, I think for the US to continue to be the home for the greatest technical advancements that type of funding must occur.
      Sorry this is well off the topic, but I am always a a conflicted conservative when it comes to this part of government spending.

    • proreason says:

      Thanks David.

      Re the funding issue, isn’t a better approach to have tax deductions for “research” and other forms of early stage investigation / design / experimentation?

      That way, the government isn’t making stupid decisions about research priorities based on political gain rather than market need.

      I know Slow Joe has told us that government has been behind every scientific breakthrough of all time, but it just seems to me that a few of those people made their amazing discoveries for reasons other than a handout.

      Even Ralph Nadar did what he did without being pushed by the government. So the argument that cars would never have become safer without big brother is simply wrong.

      My going in rule about government is that EVERYTHING it does is wrong. The bureaucratic nature of it pretty much insures that. So the mere fact that fools like Obamy are pushing green energy, aside from the total lack of evidence that windmills and solar will ever make sense, is absolute proof that they is are wastes of time and investment capital.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      @pro – but nuclear energy is also green energy—why private enterprise is reluctant to build it is because of NIMBYism. As for most scientific research, it’s done in a public-private partnership…rarely ever pure-play government research.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      What say ye, David?

    • David says:

      I like Pro’s idea (this one and others). A lot of the problem I see with government funded research is that it is as inconsistent as politics. For example, scrapping a massive, cost-over run space program like Constellation rather then tearing it apart and finding money in every little part the way a company would. Also regulations about government spending often waste money when it is designed to reduce waste. For example, I have been limited to buying airline tickets through the govt. travel agency that are three times the price because I couldn’t be reimbursed for buying them earlier on my own.
      LD was the question you wanted my opinion on, I wasn’t sure?
      Adam, I think it depends on the type of research but all of the funding I have been involved with is only from the Government. US Air Force office of research and now DARPA. Grants from companies and partnerships are usually pretty small and it takes too much time to keep writing new proposals just to keep regular funding.

  23. proreason says:

    Where to start……..oh wait. Reviewing notes to self…..ah yes, don’t waste time on lost causes.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »