This just RULES:
Some hi-lites:
That’s just for laughs. The rest is dead on the money:
I’m guessing the story below was his source:
Max Blumenthal: Monica Goodling, One of 150 Pat Robertson Cadres in the Bush Administration
“President Shit-For-Brains”…lmao
Maher is great. Excellent writers on the show.
“Hayseeds”…my my…what an elitist term.
Reveling in your intellectual superiority are you two?
well, you’re not exactly climbing up the evolutionary ladder by continuing to believe in the idiot in the Oval Office…
how many times does the guy have to fail before you’ll admit he is clueless???
TC, get your transcripts ready for Pat Robertson U.
I hear they have a great revisionist history department.
new courses added this year include:
Adam & Eve Walked with the Dinosaurs
&
Intelligent Design; Why it Skipped the Bush Family
[quote]“Hayseeds”…my my…what an elitist term.
Reveling in your intellectual superiority are you two?[/quote]
I’ll let Maher answer for me:
See, that’s the whole point of this piece (obviously you didn’t watch it). We’re “re-claiming” the term elite. Actually, it pisses me off in a way. I’ve been saying there’s nothing shameful or negative in the term “liberal” for ages, and now some celebrity mentions this in an aside kind of way, as if it were ‘so last year’ to even bother bringing it up. Bastard probably read one of my posts and plagerized (sp?) me!
Oh, and Hondu, regarding those revisionist history courses, you should add these that I’ve recently read of on Forumosa:
- Senator Joe McCarthy - American patriot and hero
- the not-the-least-bit-sordid history of America in Chile
- why America actually won the Vietnam War
Vay & Hondo -
You like blue cheese…don’t you…admit it it!
Actually, there was an economic survey regarding the consumption of brie (sp?), and it turns out it’s primarily popular with upper-middle-income Republicans. Can’t link you the survey, though - I read about it in a very interesting book called GOING NUCULAR - Language, Politics and Culture in Confrontational Times which was borrowed by one of those infamous book-non-returners and is now probably on the loaner shelf at some guest-house on Ko Chang.
And FYI, the only kinds of cheese are eat are A) smoked string cheese (YUM YUM) and B) a slice of Kraft American over the top of my mac-n-cheese
itis an unfortunte truism that
“the people who most want to be politicians are those who are least able to lead us… those who are the most able are those who least want the job”.
wise people.
elitism? what a hayseedy term.
Who was the guy they kind of apologised to after calling Bush ‘shit for brains’?
Latest on this story: Pat Robertson’s Regent U web-page quietly removes its reference to the 150 Bush staff-members who are Regent graduates…
[quote]About a week ago, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick noted a tidbit that the rest of us missed: TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Regent University boasts that 150 of its graduates, including former top DoJ aide Monica Goodling, are serving in some capacity in the Bush administration. Lithwick noted that this is “a huge number for a 29-year-old school.” That’s certainly true; it’s also a huge number for a small right-wing college led by a radical televangelist who believes Americans brought 9/11 upon themselves.
Lithwick knew about the 150 Regent grads because, as she put it, the school’s website “proclaims [the number] proudly” on its About Us page. That is, until this past week.
Reader J.S. alerted me to an interesting observation: shortly after Lithwick’s piece was published and the 150 figure quickly drew national attention (and a Paul Krugman column), Regent edited its About Us page — and removed the reference to the 150 Bush-hired alumni.
According to Google cache, as recently as April 12, Regent’s “facts” page included seven bullets noting graduates in various political positions, with the seventh noting, in all bold letters, “150 graduates serving in the Bush Administration.” As of yesterday, the same page is identical, except the seventh bullet has been deleted. Regent stopped bragging about staffing the administration almost immediately after someone from the media noticed.
I’m open to suggestion, but it seems to me there are two possibilities: either Regent is suddenly embarrassed to be associated so closely with the Bush administration, or the administration is suddenly embarrassed to be associated so closely with Regent.[/quote]
That’s a toss-up.
A school founded by a religious nut, or an administration run by a bumbling idiot…
I don’t think I’d want either one of them on my resume’.
[quote=“Vay”][quote]“Hayseeds”…my my…what an elitist term.
Reveling in your intellectual superiority are you two?[/quote]
I’ll let Maher answer for me:
See, that’s the whole point of this piece (obviously you didn’t watch it). We’re “re-claiming” the term elite. Actually, it pisses me off in a way. I’ve been saying there’s nothing shameful or negative in the term “liberal” for ages, and now some celebrity mentions this in an aside kind of way, as if it were ‘so last year’ to even bother bringing it up. Bastard probably read one of my posts and plagerized (sp?) me![/quote]
Maher’s point is a good one, but incomplete, and what he misses matters.
Bill Clinton is an elite politician, a good thing: he knows what he’s doing, even if he provides plenty of reasons for everyone else to shake their heads and ask, “Bill, what the hell were you thinking?”
The Bush and Kennedy families are political elites, problematic at best: each forms a nexus for the accumulation and deployment of power (parallel to, or entirely outside of electoral mandates). Members of such families play ‘just folks’, or act like royalty, but at the end of the day they’re patricians.
That said, I don’t know that there’s really much reason to expect the blue collar guy who works his way up to govern better than a trust-fund kid, save that he ought to be less removed from the daily realities of the vast majority of the population. I’d expect their loyalties to be with those from whom they came, but wouldn’t rely on it.