Forums | MacLife

Umm, this isn't new.

It worked for Spiderman against the Green Goblin.

You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us.

Personally, I think he should have given MJ the boot.
Ursula was way hotter, though a little on the skinny side.

What were we talking about?

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Umm, this isn't new.

I don't think he said it was.

Shickster wrote:

What the hell is the deal with this? How can it possibly matter whether or not some trailer-park boob can personally identify with the candidate -- to the point where it's become a major, and recurring campaign issue?

You want to go back to Lincoln born in a log cabin and dirt poor or back farther?

Farmerkev wrote:

Here you go, starter material.
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/americavotes/

For starter material you need to go back a lot farther than that.

It's amusing to watch Kev's conviction that he's making a point of some kind.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

It's amusing to watch Kev's conviction that he's making a point of some kind.

What was the point of your topic then please.
Do you find it odd that people vote for someone they believe is like themselves?
Why do you suppose they tend to move into neighborhoods with people like themselves or be friends with people like themselves.
This isn't a major mystery.

I asked, "why is this the case?"

Your answer was, "it's been like this for a long time!"

Which is no answer at all.

Glad to see you finally decided to actually address this, tho.

Meanwhile, history shows that many presidents with "elitist" backgrounds have turned out to be the greatest champions for the common man.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

This is a peculiarly American phenomenon that's begun to drive me nuts. Namely, the idea that a terrible thing for a politician to seem is "better" or "elite," while the best thing he or she can seem is "one of us." With "us" presumably meaning some beer-swilling shmoe.

That always worked so well for Bush against Gore and Kerry, and now McCain is trying to use it against Obama (re: the TV ad linking Obama to Hollywood celebs and the centre of a foreign cult of personality).

What the hell is the deal with this? How can it possibly matter whether or not some trailer-park boob can personally identify with the candidate -- to the point where it's become a major, and recurring campaign issue?

Explainplzthx!

It's standardized fear tactics. In the next anti-Obama media blitzkrieg perpetrated by McCain's home camp and FAUX News, I'm sure, will be publishing a picture of him wearing a Polo shirt with the collar popped, sipping *gasp* a glass of wine (that came in a bottle, as opposed to a box).

TEH HORORZ!

Last edited by iBubba (2008-08-03 3:21 pm)

Is there really such a thing as a superior person, as far as social status anyway? I mean, I dont see anyone being attacked because they were smart or wise, but more because of privilege and a perceived distance from the lives of the common people they are about to get authority over and affect.

Common people are idiots, sure. So are the social "elite," just turn on the gossip news for crying out loud. Whats more, its seems like everyone thinks that the "ellite" in the sense of politics and economics is the same thing as "elite" in the sense of intelligence. But there are plenty common poor people who are teachers and social workers who are nowhere near what is broadcast by propaganda as "elite." Elite in that sense tends to mean successful business men- whether you are a liberal "feel your pain" dude or a conservative (dont forget that Clinton ran the same "I'm one of you guys" thing too). Big surprise that neither party has been doing anything huge or revolutionary "for the people" because the most liberal expression offered is fiscal conservatism.

And no wonder politicians get away with murder. The mindset of the people have been convinced that the US plutocracy is actually democracy, and when dissatisfied, beg to be ruled by what the rich and powerful have already culturally conditioned them to believe is "elite."

Personally I'd like to just see the hose turned on people like Bush who offer themselves as "aw shucks" commoners who in fact silver spoon fed irresponsible trust fund brats sinking company after company because daddy's pockets are deep.

Last edited by StaticAge (2008-08-03 3:42 pm)

We want better (smarter/wiser) but not "better" (snobbish/out of touch)

ScifiterX wrote:

We want better (smarter/wiser) but not "better" (snobbish/out of touch)

The problem is that if you have a large vocabulary and use it, you're snobbish and out of touch. If you don't watch lowbrow entertainment it's because you think you're better than everyone else. If you don't like coffee, it's because you're snobbish and out of touch. If you tell people that they have to work to solve problems, you're condescending and need to have your nuts cut off.

BTW, vocabulary isn't intelligence. I mean look at how many words Bush added to the dictionary, and he's a moron. Look at how many big words politicians use to say nothing.

The ability to look, listen, learn, & actually solve problems is intelligence.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2008-08-03 6:34 pm)