patrick.net

Kevin says

But people of Palin’s ilk are just inherently anti-education. They hate universities, they hate learning, and they definitely hate educators.

Perhaps if Sarah had introduced her daughter to the concept of education - and encouraged studying - she might not be a grandmother right now. Mebbe she should write something about that on her hand...

elliemae says

Kevin says

But people of Palin’s ilk are just inherently anti-education. They hate universities, they hate learning, and they definitely hate educators.

Perhaps if Sarah had introduced her daughter to the concept of education - and encouraged studying - she might not be a grandmother right now. Mebbe she should write something about that on her hand…

I am not so sure education prevents kids from engaging in sex....it is human nature to start developing urges at this age.

Kevin says

4X says

Sarah Palin and it seems arch-conservatives are now calling Obama the professor because of the extreme amount of intellect he possesses.

To be fair, I think she’s calling him a professor because, well, he actually was a professor.
But people of Palin’s ilk are just inherently anti-education. They hate universities, they hate learning, and they definitely hate educators. There are a few reasons for this:
1. Education frequently clashes with religion, especially for dumb people who can’t separate faith from fact.
2. Well educated work forces understand their power and know how to bargain. The rise of unions can be traced directly to the rise of public education, for instance. These people want a return to the days of Rockerfeller and Carnegie (or, more simply, modern day China), and in order to get to that you can’t have an educated work force.

I would suppose that is why the Republican party is comprised of Hillbillies, Joe the Plumbers and Business men who want to take advantage of their ignorance.

"Business men" is unfair. There are plenty of "business men" who go with the Democrats as well. The main difference is which businesses favor which parties. The Apples and Googles of the world support democrats while the AT&Ts and Exxons support Republicans. What's the difference? The former group succeeds by disrupting the status quo, while the latter succeeds by maintaining it.

Nope, Kevin. You're wrong. It's black & white and when each child is born he already has the gene that will direct his politics for the rest of his life. Even intelligent people have no self-determination in this matter.

Next they'll be selling teevees that only receive programming for your political party. That way dems won't have to accidentally watch faux news, and republicans won't be exposed to social issues.

Ok, i get your point....but you have to admit that hillbillies and bigots do prefer the Republican party.

Yes, poor people from rural areas vote Republican and poor people from urban areas vote Democrat.

Of course, neither group votes very much, so who cares anyway? Both parties are fucking vile.

4X says

Ok, i get your point….but you have to admit that hillbillies and bigots do prefer the Republican party.

I'd say there's a fair amount of that on both sides of the river.

Kevin says

Yes, poor people from rural areas vote Republican and poor people from urban areas vote Democrat.
Of course, neither group votes very much, so who cares anyway? Both parties are fucking vile.

I still like the woman who ran in the Calif gov race that represented the "party" party. That'd be fun.

elliemae says

I still like the woman who ran in the Calif gov race that represented the “party” party. That’d be fun.

Wow, that sounds interesting. Also impossible to think up web search terms for it that aren't a swamp of random links. Any clues?

Kevin says

Yes, poor people from rural areas vote Republican and poor people from urban areas vote Democrat.
Of course, neither group votes very much, so who cares anyway? Both parties are fucking vile.

You know what.......I actually agree with that point. Both parties prey on the poor constituents who blindly follow them.