My reaction to this whole thing is what has happened to our sense of humor. Yes this was intended to be a swipe at Republicans but it was meant to be humorous. This is another case of people being offended way to easily (on both sides). To quote Shakespeare “Much Ado About Nothing.”

Form over substance has always been the trademark of libs.
God forbid I ever make a grammatical or spelling error on a lib blog.
It quickly turns into a question of ones intelligence.
And when the libs own grammatical or spelling errors are pointed out they quickly claim it to acceptable due to artistic license and part of their on line persona.

Seriously, its funny.

You guys really need to get over yourselves.

JMJ

“Conservatives will never win over erudite liberals until they are as erudite as them. No insult intended. There’s nothing wrong with not being erudite. I’m not very erudite myself. But I don’t hate people for being erudite. I try to understand them all.”

Obviously, that smugness we find so repugnant in most Liberals is born of a deep sense of inferiority. In JMJ’s case, he at least recognizes it as he fumbles to emulate the worst in society.

JMJ;
“(Your last comment proves my point)’

What ? The one over on the other thread where I blasted you with my own research proving I am much more learned on a subject than you are without having to read The New Yorker ?

I love it when liberals try to act all educated and snotty by using extinct words such as “erudite” which simply means “informed” or “learned”.
And then try to act as if it has some special meaning other than the simplest of meanings that its truly associated with.

lets get one thing straight.
And this applies to all liberals.
Knock it off !
You actually look dumb as opposed to trying to project this educated appearance when you claim that people are somehow less informed or educated than you just because we choose different forms of info.

And in a personal application to jersey I have to say that you make me laugh my ass off when you get this way because for the last year you are the one who has become famous for not relying on any educated material to prove your points, but rather you have relied on emotion and the hope that others will take your word for it based on some false premise that we are all supposed to trust you.
And get another thing straight.
We all have computers and so the amount of resources available to make an arguement is endless.
Its silly to think that anyone who dissagrees or makes an opposing arguement is somehow less learned, unless of course he thinks his opinion is far more viable in proving or making any case.

And yea, timbudd, I do miss OMNI.
And Jersey. I had no idea that there was such a thing as right wing music and sports

Now, I need to get back to my NRA monthly and check out the home run derby I tivo’d last night.

I miss Omni. That was good reading.

To answer your questions in order…

Yes.

I wouldn’t put Newsweek in the “erudite” catagory - try again.

If you want information then weigh the CBA and decide for yourself.

(Your last comment proves my point)

Don’t you guys read anything other than rightwing bs and sports and music???

JMJ

And it backfired.

Erudite ?
Yea, I could read Newsweek also but why ?
Why would I want to give my money to any establishment that goes against my political beliefs ?
Theres plenty of learning to be done without being subjected to political activism in the form of journalism

I mean, look, I don’t just read The Nation, for example. If I did, I’d go insane. I subscribe to Sciam, Discover, and all sorts of other apolitcal stuff. I’ve subscribed to the NY’er in the past, and Atlantic Monthly - and the National Review (sorry, but it ain’t what it was anymore), the best conservative periodical probably ever. If I had the money, I’d get the CSM too.

Don’t you guys take in any culture outside your immediate interests? Does it all have to be politically bent your way if bent at all? Did it ever occur to you that you see all things in the political and miss out on the sociological, scientific, cultural stuff? I know you like sports and music, and that’s great - so do I. But to bash the NY’er, I’m sorry, is just plain low-brow.

If you guys read more stuff like the NY’er, you’d know that they didn’t make that cover to “play into the fears of those who see Obama as a closet Muslim who hates America.” They did it to GOOF on those people. And to goof on people silly enough to fall for the whole democrat/republican passion play in the first place.

And to prove my point - Today’s democrats and republicans are not yesterdays. This is 2008, not 1964. You’re assertion that somehow things remain the same, Eric, is completely out of place and time. Silly nonsense. The New Yorker is a classy, smart magazine. The jokes on anyone who doesn’t get it. If you think todays GOP is tyhe same as 40 years ago, then you have some high piles of political history books to read.

Conservatives will never win over erudite liberals until they are as erudite as them. No insult intended. There’s nothing wrong with not being erudite. I’m not very erudite myself. But I don’t hate people for being erudite. I try to understand them all.

JMJ