That is a right-wing fear; a fundamentalist Muslim state is no more a terrorist state than a fundamentalist Christian state. I think you may have revealed more about your self than you wanted.

Really? To quote the left-wing homosexual activist bruce Bawer: “Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas, James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but it didn’t tell people to murder their daughters. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me gay marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me.”

I suppose it reveals that I am more well versed in the fundamentals of Islamic theology than you are, or that I am more willing to overcome multi-culti politically correct fantasies of the moral equality of all religious or philosophical dogma.

I suppose one could argue that many Muslim fundamentalists do not support terrorism against civilians as a way to spread Islam until it dominates the world’s entire political sphere, well, whatever. Islamic law still sucks and is backward and barbaric, and does justify violence. That’s an indictment on a philosophy, a book, a prophet, a religious tradition – but not on an entire race of people.

As for the non-collapse of Iraq—it costs me nothing to say that the Iraq government has not collapsed. What’s your point?

I don’t cater to the stereotype that all Arabs are Muslim fundamentalists, as you do, so I have different opinions as to why Iraq has not collapsed into medieval barbarity, typical of fundamentalist Islamic societies.

You support this conspiracy theory of a rigged vote, a puppet government, and the Bush regime secretly pulling the strings on all of Iraq’s political affairs until the Muslim fundamentalist majority is utterly oppressed. Otherwise, how else could Arabs act so enlightened with a democratic parliamentary system, reaching out to minorities and persecuting terrorists and all?

This is the key distinction in this argument. Which reality is actually real? Considering your low expectations of the Arab race, and your narcissistic projection of imaginary events onto a world that doesn’t fit with your own pre-conceived notions on how people are supposed to behave, I would have to say that you are more elitist than I.

Part of the genius of the colonial elite was their wisdom and/or humility to recognize what an imperfect creature a human is. They knew first hand how elevating just one of these imperfect creatures above all others, as in a monarchy, could wreak havoc upon the lives of many. They set out to devise a system that would limit the power of any one person, or group of persons, over the others, and thus limit the damage an incompetent could do.

Many of today’s elite come across as if their “pedigree” in one area affords them expertise in all. Thus we see the wealthy Hollywood “elite”, having read an article or two in the Foreign Affairs journal, lecturing us on foreign policy. Or a linguistic genius pronouncing that the economic system of America is flawed and evil.

The attitude of the political elite, whether they be a Mrs. Clinton telling us she will take from us for the “common good”, or a Mrs. Obama telling us that her husband will save our souls, or a John McCain willing to sacrifice first amendment rights for a clean government, reflects what our founding fathers wanted to protect us from; the know-it-all megalomaniac, and the people who don’t just back them, but worship them.

It is true that all Presidential candidates are elite, by their definition; they are the select few. And all need to have a strong ego and sense of entitlement to get through the election process. Thus the above examples are not meant to suggest that any of the three are not worthy of the job in light of the examples given. It should be fairly obvious that the “I know what’s best” attitude would define all political candidates, or they wouldn’t be running for office. The examples serve to point out why a system that limits their power is a good thing, since some of them will be just plain wrong on some issues.

I believe many Americans sense that the elite status of a candidate doesn’t make them perfect or all knowing, and therefore they bristle when a candidate gives off the “do you know who I am” vibe. A little humility, a sense of “I am, deep down, one of you” goes a long way. If I may be so bold as to generalize, Americans tend to want someone who most closely reflects their point of view and their concerns, willingly compromising some issues in the process. Most reasonable Americans do not expect to elect a “god”, and rightly (in my opinion) look with scorn upon those that do.

Now–where do did I ever equate TERRORISM with Muslim fundamentalism?

That is a right-wing fear; a fundamentalist Muslim state is no more a terrorist state than a fundamentalist Christian state. I think you may have revealed more about your self than you wanted.

Now, as for
[quote]Iraqi government voted to nationalize the oil industry[/quote]
Seriously, have you been paying any attention, or do you just read the cliffnotes?

Who owns the oil industry means nothing when it is in name only and US and British petrolium giants control it. You may own the car we are driving in, but if I am at the wheel, we go where I want to go.

And, as we’ve seen the oil companies and oil infrastructure companies are cutting themselves some sweetheart deals. The “nationalized” oil industry is nothing more than a save face move for the Iraqi government. When Oil is running at $120 per barrel even though there are no shortages and everyone is making money hand over fist, there’s more than enough for even greedy big oil to share with Iraq.

To suggest this means anything is disingenuous

As for the non-collapse of Iraq—it costs me nothing to say that the Iraq government has not collapsed. What’s your point? I don’t even understand the relevence here. The fact it has not collapsed when propped up against the country constantly teetering on the brink civil war somehow proves what point about conservative or progressive elitism?

For someone who seems intelligent, you don’t make sense about half the time.

This is yet another example of you arguing about other things to take the discussion off point because you’ve already lost the debate. You pretend to rebut other people with completely different discussions and walk off as if you’ve proved something.

All that Democracy in Iraq only matters when the people’s vote counts for something.

Conspiracy theories are exercises in narcissism. If reality doesn’t fit the paradigm constructed in your mind, then reality cannot be true – so you have to project your historical narrative onto reality.

I guess when the Shiite party of Ayatolla Sistani defeated the American-backed Allawi party in the Parliamentary elections, or when the Iraqi government voted to nationalize the oil industry, much to the chagrin of neocons like Paul Wolfowitz, it was because Bush’s appointed puppet regime of Iraq orchestrated those policies as an attempt to fool critics like you into believing the democracy was genuine. Boy, you showed them! They underestimated how smart you are!

If the election really mattered, the country would be a fundamentalist Muslim state and the US would have left the country by now.
How revealing in this discussion about elitism that you would openly cater to the stereotype that all Arabs are terrorists. I suppose you feel you must be morally superior to them then.

That isn’t the case…

Refreshing that an war critic admits that Iraq has not collapsed, or that the government appears to be functioning to persecute extremism successfully; however, that is apparently because the elitist Bush regime’s tentacles have infiltrated and engineered Iraqi society in secret, subtle ways. I guess its because the Bush administration must agree with you – those damn Arabs can’t be trusted!

Or perhaps its because the democracy in Iraq is genuine, and that the majority of Arabs are rational, tolerant people who reject a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. I know, this characterization of the Arab race might be going out on a limb for someone like you.

This has nothing to do with elitism–it has to do with competence and cronyism.

Bush has appointed nearly 300 federal judges (including two supreme court justices).

Other presidents have been more successful because they aim for more competent judges; Bush picks friends who lack judicial merit. Did you really want Gonzales or Meiers on the Supreme Court?

Looking at his track record for any kind of appointment, seriously, haven’t you had enough of his appointments?

Now, go back to ignoring the truth about which party truly believes itself to be better than everyone else

And Jimmy, do you even believe half the stuff you write? All that Democracy in Iraq only matters when the people’s vote counts for something. If the election really mattered, the country would be a fundamentalist Muslim state and the US would have left the country by now. That isn’t the case, though, because elitist like yourself think you know what is best for them–or actually, to be fair, you think you know what is best for yourselves, because really you don’t care about anyone else.

Elitism wouldn’t be a dirty word if the actions of the majority of the elite weren’t born out at the expense of the rest.

When a fascist dictator rules by an iron fist for 20 years, according to his will and his will alone, I suppose that is “liberation.”

It is amazing how the left will outright rally against the principles of democracy and support fascism instead, just because a Republican took the lead. How Orwellian.

Kind of like occupying Iraq to force them into a government that we approve of, huh? Not surprisingly, the brainless neoecon parrot has no concept of irony.

The vast majority of folks understand this. One can deconstruct the term and point out that “elite is supposed to be good,” but that ignores the point. usually, folks believe that if you take any good to let’s say a fetishistic level by turning it into an “-ism,” then you’re starting to go too far. For example, we all think that fatherhood is good, right? But we tend to look askance at something that feels overly paternalistic.

It’s a matter of balance. The anti-”-ism” argument is effective in part because it focuses attention away from whatever valid insights may come from the viewpoint, and onto the invasive prescriptiveness. In reality, both aspects (the insight and the invasive prescriptiveness) are worthy of notice.

A plebian might claim that he believes in his heart-of-hearts that Christ is the redeemer of the world, and that religion is intrinsically valuable to him, but the elitist will claim that the plebian, as an object of social study, is really clinging to a “false consciousness” out of dispair from material want.

Despite what you think is important to you, I know what you really need, and you should follow me because I am smarter than you and have a world-class education and all my friends are social scientists and aristocrats. Allow me to engineer society for your betterment.

The GOP has been very effective in painting the left as elitist, to some extent because it’s chief face (Bush) appears so commonplace. The man can barely string a group of words together into a sentence, has failed at almost everything he has ever ,,, but that facade stands in stark contrast to the reality in which he has been handed everything his entire life and has received incredible special treatment.

He has surrounded himself with like-minded people who believe they are better than the common man–a belief that has resulted in outright hostility toward the middle and lower classes–but that same lower and middle class has continued to support these people because of a remarkable PR campaign.

In a sad sick way, you almost have to tip your hat to them.