Why do liberals call themselves "Intellectual Liberals"?

What disgusts me is the fact that liberals often refer to not only themselves, but other liberals, like Obama, as "Intellectuals"......

Why? And, what proof do they have that they themselves, and other liberals, are intellectuals? I just got off a thread that some "Intellectual Liberal" was calling for the mass murder of every conservative in the red state. And so, this led me to the start of this thread in getting any liberal out there that dares to take my challenge in explaining to me why you think you are "Intellectual"......

And please, don't give me the same ol' crap line of: "Well, you can't paint every liberal blah blah"...... If you're a liberal, then you support the liberals that want conservatives dead. The reason I say this is because you liberals don't do logic. If it's logical that you wouldn't support someone like this, then you would change your tune. But, you dont....

To help you liberals out, I'll give you a couple of examples of what I'm talking about:

1. Time and time again, the liberal whites and the liberal white establishment of this country paints the liberal blacks of this country as stupid. And what do the liberal blacks of this country do? Continue to support the same white liberals that are keeping them down. Is that a very "Intellectual" thing for you liberal blacks to do?

2. Liberals, like the one in this OP, constantly call for the death of conservatives. But yet, the liberals continue, via their support of the liberal establishment slogan of "Humanitarian Liberals", to support the very same liberals that are calling for conservatives deaths. Is that a very "Intellectual" thing for liberals to do?

3. Liberal Mob Mentality is prevelant in today's society. Although they have no answers, the liberal chants slogans to stoke up the madness (mob mentality) that dwells within their hearts because otherwise, they would gain no ground on anything that they support. Is the mob mentality the way to go? Is that very "Intellectual"?


I don't want to drag it out and if given the time, I could spend days writing up other examples of liberal stupidity. So, I ask you again. What makes you liberals so intellectual?

 

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. That would seem to merit the label "intellectual" to me.

 

None of you numbnuts even read what I wrote. You read that EZ-E posted something, and you come on with liberal drivel......especially you Maple....

 

What disgusts me is the fact that liberals often refer to not only themselves, but other liberals, like Obama, as "Intellectuals"......

Why? And, what proof do they have that they themselves, and other liberals, are intellectuals?

My post responded directly to this section of your OP.

 

And so, while Obama graduated Magna Cum Lade, yet made all the wrong decisions, would he still be an "Intellectual"

 

You question contains a false premise. Do you want to try again?

 

those who can't DO - teach
those who can't TEACH - teach teachers
those who can't TEACH TEACHERS - stay in grad school forever, live in their parent's basement, and style themselves as INTELLECTUALS

 

We'll take it a step further. Say you Ireimon, graduated Magna Cum Lade, and because you're a liberal that graduated at that level from a liberal college (which is no large feat by the way), went out in the world and based on your "intellectual status" as a liberal Magna Cum Lade graduate, made all the wrong decisions, just like Obama, would you consider yourself an intellectual?

I tell you what, forget that. What if your were the President Ireimon, liberal "intellectual" graduate of a liberal university, raised the average American's self debt from 200K to 535K such as Obama did. Would you be an "Intellectual"?

 

Want to try it again, EZ-F?

 

It makes them feel important. Since they're big believers in relativism, if they're not comparing themselves to somebody else, then they lose thier self-worth and their beliefs lose merit.

Liberals are in a chronic pursuit of reminding themselves that they're the good guys. They need constant validation of this or they start to doubt themselves. Many of them don't realize they're doing this either.

 

I don't need to at this point. My point has been made.

 

There are intellectuals of every political persuasion.

The problem currently is that the GOP seems to shun intellectualism in its leadership. The Democratic party is a big tent party -- meaning that there is a wide variety of viewpoints among them. This diversity of thought is what leads to more intellectualism.

The GOP lately seems to subdue its moderates in favor of the more fanatical Tea Party candidates. Fanaticism and intellectualism are usually at odds with each other, because a strong reliance on ideology usually mutes critical thinking.

Your typical Democrat leader takes a nuanced approach to things. Despite all the rhetoric against him, Obama is actually very nuanced in his approach to most issues. He doesn't toe the party line on everything.

By contrast, most Tea Party candidates are ideologues to the extreme.

That's the difference. In general, moderate candidates tend to be the most intellectual.

Now, there are still ideologues that can be intellectual. William F. Buckley was a world famous intellectual among the right wing, for example.

Unfortunately, there are very few Buckley types in the GOP leadership right now.

 

Relativism is often the basis of intellectualism, because it encourages critical thinking.

I think you're mistaking validation with investigation.

 

It certainly has.

 

Gosh, you are vey correct, EZ-E.

Liberals like to sell themselves as "intellectuals" when actually they know less about current events and have fewer reasoning skills than the rest of us.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Also, this analysis was very good, very realistic and very accurate.

 

1) this is a remarkable statement - so how large is the prolife caucus of the national Democrat party? The Democrat party on any number of issues has been taken over by extremists from the Left - from anthropogenic climate change to abortion on demand, to national health care, to amnesty for illegal aliens.

2) I have no objection to your opinion that the Republican party is purging itself of RINOs- I am a part of accelerating that long overdue cleansing operation. But to characterize the Tea Party as "fanatical" shows how little you understand of the Tea Party phenom, you have simply swallowed the garbage info fed to you by Democrat leadership and the Dinosaur media.

3) God, now that comment made me reach for some Glen Livet. Th current crop of Democrats walks the chalk of the union bosses, the environuts, the abortion industry, and the trial lawyers, and the civil rights industry. NUANCED APPROACH ----

 

Indeed. Liberals are afraid to air their true feelings.........well, they really have no true feelings on events outside of the soundbites that the liberal media feeds them. Again, running with soundbites as facts, and true feelings, is that "Intellectual"?

I think not. You see, liberals are stupid. And, they know they are. But they convince themselves that they've all of the sudden, like Obama, become "Intellectuals" because a couple of soundbites sounded good to them at that particular time.

When those soundbites that they hold dear so much is proven wrong, well, the "Intellectual" liberal then moves to other soundbites to solidify their "Intellectualism" in their own minds......

 

Observe the Blue Dog Democrats. About half of the Democrats in Congress are moderates on social and/or economic issues. Yes, some of them are even pro-life.

Remember what happened with the healthcare law that Obama eventually passed? Initially, it was supposed to be an NHS. Then it became a public option. Then it became mandatory private insurance.

The only reason this happened wasn't because of the GOP. It was because the Blue Dogs mostly were against an NHS or even a public option.

Name a Tea Party candidate that isn't far to the right on most issues.

Oh really? Obama is certainly in deep with the unions, but he's not like that with "environuts" or the "abortion industry." He's not even in favor of gay marriage.

By the way, what the heck is the "civil rights industry"? You make it sound like civil rights are a bad thing.

 

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. If that doesn't qualify for being and intellectual, what does?

 

"Your typical Democrat leader takes a nuanced approach to things.

Despite all the rhetoric against him, Obama is actually very nuanced in his approach to most issues. He doesn't toe the party line on everything."

Check this out!

"If you thought Hillary’s laugh was creepy, wait until you hear President Obama from 60 Minutes last night, laughing about the economic crisis!"

^

60 Minutes Kroft To Joking Obama "Are You Punch Drunk?"​

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNu9xjUwPEk&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - ‪60 Minutes Kroft To Joking Obama "Are You Punch Drunk?"‬‏[/ame]

 

I graduated Magna Cum Lade from Arizon State University. Am I an Intellectual?

 

It's an arrogance that breeds contempt for others. It is self deluding to the point that such individuals think they're above reproach and the rules don't apply to them.

Obama
Jarrett
Pelosi
Reid
Edwards
Weiner


Duh.................

 

Well, I think the left has some credit to it's name. At least we know the differnce between comedy and the news.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-18-2007/matt-groening

The quote I'm looking for, starts at 4:20.

 

Indeed Trinnity. The liberal holds itself in the highest regard. They have no answers mind you, but they don't let that simple fact stop them. The mob mentality rules via soundbites.

How many times have you seen the same soundbites rolling off the suck of many liberals on here? Is that intellectual thought? You would think that if liberals were actually the "Intellectuals of Society", they would be rolling out all kinds of different sound bites that have never been heard before.

But yet, they don't. Why is that? Is it because they are not "Intellectual" at all?