October 11, 2003


Why did Americans elect Bush? Because they’re stupid, according to this Democratic Underground superbrain:

What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed

This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them.

I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.

#1 - I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.

Hmm. The same idiot population that elected Bush voted in greater numbers for Al Gore, and twice elected Bill Clinton.

(Via Best of the Web.)

Posted by Tim Blair at October 11, 2003 05:15 PM

"We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve." Well, DUH! And he considers himself in the top 1-20%?

Posted by: RonB at October 11, 2003 at 06:03 PM

Well, that's going to really win the masses over.

Posted by: gaz at October 11, 2003 at 06:03 PM

WOW: " the majority of the populaion is in the lower 80 to 99% of the BELL CURVE".
I must have flunked maths!

Gadfly Biting The Bum Of The Unthinking

Posted by: Gadfly at October 11, 2003 at 06:19 PM


"THIS is what we are fighting against people. In order to win we will need to start pandering to the masses."

I think they just figured out how democracy works!

Posted by: donnyc at October 11, 2003 at 06:51 PM

One of the web playgrounds for the 'elites'. From many countries. All telling themselves how bad the US is and still nursing the grudge that Gore wasn't elected. I'm looking forward to what will appear on that site as we get closer to presidential election time.

Many of the postings at democraticunderground are better than watching a comedy, if you want some laughs. They can get themselves talked into a conspiracy very quickly. A few months ago there was a thread, very serious too, about the Illuminati and George Bush.

Some posters try to inject some common sense and reason. Many times these posters are accused of being from the Free Republic website. I gather they have had some posting wars with that site.

No offense to anyone who likes the Free Republic site, but they can be weird too, at times. They have their share of ABSOLUTE Republicans who take themselves WAY too seriously.

As long as you have a sense of humor there are many such sites that are worth visiting for a few laughs. Perhaps it's because I'm neither a Democrat or Republican nor a Liberal or Conservative. All depends on the issues and the person. Perhaps if I had loyalties to one or the other 'camp' I wouldn't find them both so amusing at times. I admit that democraticunderground has more loonies than Free Republic. You can actually find interesting discussions at Free Republic and posters that use facts.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at October 11, 2003 at 07:39 PM

Gadfly's right, if this person is so smart, why doesn't he understand a bell curve?

Betcha he has all Michael Moore's books and has seen every film (more than once).

Posted by: S Whiplash at October 11, 2003 at 07:40 PM

majority rules. realize this and get a life.

Posted by: Le clerc at October 11, 2003 at 08:19 PM

This "person" has just equated stupidity with success since it is a known fact that the most pandered to constituencies of the Democrats are the poor, homeless, etc. The Demos are always railing about the rich Repubs so I guess this means that you must be stupid to get rich (now I know why I've never risen above the middle class!!)

Posted by: Alan Cramer at October 11, 2003 at 10:15 PM

Bit like all the really stupid sods who voted for John Howard, and hated every bit as much by the self appointed intelligensia in this country.

Posted by: Habib at October 11, 2003 at 11:18 PM

Listening to (American) National Public Radio on Thurs., I heard a guest commentator say the California gubernatorial recall was actually against the intent of the Progressives who wrote into the California state constitution because the writers "could not have foreseen a day when one man would have enough money to buy the votes needed for a recall."

Because, "make no mistake about it," that's what was done. The rich Republicans hired private firms who know just how to get signatures on petitions.

And the stupid, stupid people signed. The fiscal and energy-supply crises in California had nothing to do with it. Corruption and cronyism in Sacramento had nothing to do with it. The voters are just stupid.

This wasn't a fringe opinion being vented on Democratic Underground. This was on NPR. NPR thought this "commentator's" opinion to be well-reasoned enough, important enough, and "mainstream" enough to be broadcast to the nation.

Posted by: F451 at October 11, 2003 at 11:51 PM

Visiting Democraticunderground is a lot like visiting a Safari Park.

Keep your windows rolled up.
Drive slowly.
Avoid eye contact.

Posted by: Ernie G at October 12, 2003 at 12:07 AM

F451, I heard the interview, and that same line jumped out at me too. (I enjoy listening to NPR- it angers the blood.) Course, the phrase "buy the votes" has more kick than "finance the signature collection", so he *had* to say it. Facts shouldn't stand in the way of partisan bitching.

Posted by: Brian O'Connell at October 12, 2003 at 12:09 AM

Slogan of DU: "We'd rather be right than president, but we'll settle for neither."

When Columbia was lost I immediately went on to DU to see how long before the Bush-blew-it-up theories started flying. They had already started, and the event had JUST happened. Not only are DU posters not smarter than average Americans, the act of hanging out there ensures that if you do start with a modest advantage, it will quickly be worn down....

Posted by: Mike G at October 12, 2003 at 01:04 AM

Listening to (American) National Public Radio on Thurs., I heard a guest commentator say the California gubernatorial recall was actually against the intent of the Progressives who wrote into the California state constitution because the writers "could not have foreseen a day when one man would have enough money to buy the votes needed for a recall."

Because, "make no mistake about it," that's what was done. The rich Republicans hired private firms who know just how to get signatures on petitions.

Issa's money wouldn't have mattered if Gray Davis hadn't had an approval rating in the low 20s. You can't go too much lower than that without reaching a level of public affection that Californians usually reserve for Charles Manson.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at October 12, 2003 at 01:28 AM

Haha, so owned but why?

I would say the public is just ignorant.

Posted by: Greg at October 12, 2003 at 01:49 AM

"one man would have enough money to buy the votes needed for a recall"

HEY GODDAMMIT! I voted for the recall and I never got my money! WTF?!!

Posted by: Ken Summers at October 12, 2003 at 01:50 AM

Stupid cow. If this person is in the top 10% of population, God help the rest. But that site is good for a laugh.

Maybe, with her superior intelligence she could explain the following:

1. Why nearly every policy dear to the heart of lefties (like multiculturalism and A.A) has been a miserable failure.

2. My IQ is 140. I voted for Howard, if I had been an American I would have voted for Bush. Can she explain why a person in the top 10% of the population would rather be tortured by days of continual Bob Hawke speeches than vote for the ALP or the Democrats?

Posted by: dee at October 12, 2003 at 01:53 AM

BTW, in case anybody happens to run into that NPR commentator, please let him/her know that signatures on petitions are not votes.

Posted by: Ken Summers at October 12, 2003 at 01:54 AM

This is nothing new. As Ann Coulter pointed out, Nixon was evil and stupid, Ford was clumsey and stupid, Reagan was senile and stupid, Bush41 was just plain stupid, Bush43 is frat-boy stupid.

Only stands to reason that those who vote for these people are uninformed and stupid.

Posted by: Kelly at October 12, 2003 at 02:06 AM

One of the comments on the DU thread said the NYT published a breakdown of the two parties by educational attainment. Supposedly this appeared in 2000 and went like this:

Dropouts: majority Democrat
HS: majority Republican
College: majority Republican
GradSkewl: majority Democrat

Could this be true? If so it confirms what I've thought (always a comfortable conclusion): that the Democrat Party elite simply panders to the poor. These sorts of combinations have, in the past, brought us inter alia such wonders as Communist Russia, Nazi Germany and Maoist China. Happy thought.

Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at October 12, 2003 at 02:49 AM

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought Bush STOLE the election. We didn't elect him (we? - whatever). It was hijacked by a rightwing Supreme Court (by a 7-2 vote which included moderate/liberal justices Souter and Breyer, but nevermind).

And can we settle this one as well? Is Bush an idiot and chimp? Or a brilliant Machiavellian manipulator? Never can figure that one out either.


Posted by: SteveMG at October 12, 2003 at 03:02 AM

Unbelievable. That quote almost sounds like a 'troll' comment, but I'm sure the writer was perfectly sincere.

Why is it that those who disagree must be "stupid and uninformed"? To make those on the losing end feel better? Yet shouldn't the Democratic Underground be above that sort of reaction if they're so advanced... oh, enough with the rhetorical questions, I guess the answer is they're emotionally immature idiots.

Posted by: Alice at October 12, 2003 at 03:39 AM

Democrats do not try to appeal to the population about issues, they chant slogans:

Bush is stupid
Bush is a liar.
Republicans are racists.
Republicans hate children
Republicans rape the environment.
Republicans steal from the elderly.

This is memorized, lock step ideology, not a sign of superior intelligence.

Posted by: perfectsense at October 12, 2003 at 03:41 AM

Theodopoulos Pherecydes --

I think if you replace "majority" with "plurality", you're right. With respect to the California recall, accoring to the Fox exit poll, approximately 40-45% of each of the sub-HS or graduate degree people voted for Bustamente, compared to about 30-33% for each of the HS, some college, and college grad categories. I'd actually like to see a more detailed study about the voting habits of the post-grads depending on what their field of study was. I'd guess that those who study one of the real sciences or business tend to vote more or less like the "college grad" population, and those who study liberal arts, humanities, or social science to vote more pronouncedly lefty than any other group, including blacks and journalists.

Posted by: Laura at October 12, 2003 at 03:47 AM

Hi guys, since we're talking DU postrants, here's a few I collected after the recal results were in, brilliant stuff, from our intellectual superiors. Enjoy!

It takes too much energy. It causes too much angst.
If the sheeple in this country are ignorant and/or complacent enough to elect a man his own countrymen say is not qualified to run one of their towns (provinces?), they can't possibly be worth the effort. Our fellow citizens have chosen to ignore the theft of the 2000 election, cheered on the bombing & invasion of a war torn country out of vengeance for 9/11, justified the bombing, invasion & occupation of another because many thought it was connected to 9/11, hailed tax cuts they'll never see, and now this recall in CA.
I've reverted to my old wish: give them everything they ask for. They want to privatize the government, have at it. They want to eliminate public schools, bring in the demolition crew. They want to go to war with the world, bring back the draft, it won't affect me in the least. Californians want an inarticulate Austrian with no experience to be responsible for one of the largest budgets in the world, more power to 'em.
Some of us know how to be poor, are already a suspect group and live with daily suspicion/distrust, and have become experts at imitating the duplicitous nature of people who throw stones and hide their hands. When they finally experience just a fraction of what others have already spent a lifetime adapting to, maybe then they'll pull their heads out of their collective ass to see where they went wrong. In the meantime and in between time, I'm just too tired to give a damn.

fuck the people...really...they wants it, they gets it. it is going to take nothing less than a shock to the entire system...neighbors being hauled away for religious or political views, or the lifting of posse comitatus, perhaps suspending the '04 elections or martial law....give it to us oh republican gods...give america what it needs....
i am sick of fighting it
i am so tired...bone aching tired

I'm planning on moving out of the country as soon as I can and I feel like a jew in nazi germany, it seems so similar to what jews and others did right before the concentration camps came. The only ones who got out were the ones that got out early.

Dumbed-down public, right wing media, and electoral fraud. It's the only explanation. Like Michael Moore said, this country is overwhelmingly liberal. If they knew what we know, there's no way in hell they'd vote rethuglican. We have to get the word out either by democstrations or getting in the media's face about their lies.

Will you finally admit there was a coup d'état in the United States?
A brilliantly executed stratagem; a triumph.
A coup d'état.
A sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover: a boardroom coup.
A sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people.
- We just can't seem to admit it. It couldn't happen in the land of the free and the brave. But what further proof do we need that democracy was subverted by the Bushies and the Supreme Court in order to install a puppet president* to do the bidding of the neoconservatives and their corporations?
- What further proof do you need before you realize that our once-free press has become an instrument of those who now use it to hide the truth and solidify their power base?
- What will it take for you to finally realize that the US House and Senate have been subjugated and made the servant and rubber stamp of the Bush* government?
- What else has to be said and done before Americans accept that they no longer live in a free country and that their government now serves itself instead of them?
- Democrats MUST begin and continue a dialogue about what really happened to America. The 2000 election. 9-11. Shadow government. Homeland security. Patriot Act(s). Government secrecy. Election rigging. Profiteering. Breaking of treaties and trusts. Character assassination of opponents and the suppression of dissent. Preemptive strikes and illegal invasions. PNAC. The murder of thousands of innocents for ever-changing reasons.
- The ONLY way to win back our government is to recognize that the neoconservatives are playing by a different set of rules while their opposition still clings to concepts like fair play and free and fair elections.This is how they plan to stay in power: They will lie, cheat and steal...and encourage us to play by the very rules they gave up on long ago. While we rush to the polls to vote...they're busy making sure those votes don't count. While we cheer on the real public servants and truth-tellers...they're hard at work making sure these voices are never heard.
- What does this mean in terms of the 2004 election? It means that those who have taken power by deceit will keep it by deceit. The Bushies will not submit to the law of the land and have no intention of relinquishing their ill-gotten power to the will of the people in the next national election.
- There was a coup d'état in the United States of America. Admit it so that we can go on to the next step and return our government to the people.

what things would these kind of people do to us?
whenever something like this happens the innocent people always suffer first. it is not just a political enemies thing. hitler did not just go after his rivals, he went after defenseless jews. when bush and rove and that gang finally get the power they need what will happen to normal american citizens?

The coup happened in Nov. 1963 And has continued since with a people too dispirited make a change. The hippies in the 60's thought they were revolutionaries, but most of them never put everything on the line the way the socialists, unionists, populists, and "wobblies" did a hundred years ago. They keep enough of us, JUST ENOUGH of us JUST WELL-FED enough that the millions who are starving and breaking back for a living will never have enough support to make a real change, whether through rebellion or at the ballot box. It's a brilliant system if you're in the power elite. But now I'm starting to sound like Chomsky on a bad day, so I'll just say: Yes - Dec 2000 was an illegal, bloodless coup d'etat. I'm still not sure whether 9-11 was the Reichstag, though...

Well, here's an "atta boy", for stating things I have believed since the 60's. And just like back in the 60's, I can see no way to peacefully dislodge the fascists that have taken over this nation, other than actually "storming the Bastille".
One more chance (the 04 elections), and that's all I am willing to give it. If we lose, and/or, there are not major changes in this nation, then we will all have to make a choice: Fight, leave, or grab our ankles...... simple as that.

You win some and you lose some.
There was no coup when FDR built his dynasty.
There is none now.
Democrats are not connecting with voters. If they did, tonight would have just been Oct 7th, not Recall night.

You're obviously part of the 'move on' crowd... ...or with those intent on keeping the truth from the people.
- We know the truth. No amount of naysaying or propaganda will silence us. We KNOW when we're being cheated out of fair elections and when our Constitution is being shit on by neoconservative traitors.
- Democrats 'connected' in 2000 and Gore won the election. Election fraud and illegal SC decisions were covered up and Americans were intimidated into accepting lies.
- Don't try to piss on my shoes and call it rain. It's very insulting.

if you were going to move out of america and into europe what country would you go to? i have heard switzerland is good and also russia (and russia is very cheap too)

I really like Norway...I heard it is like a socialist country. But then again, the taxes are really high. But you sure get a bang for your buck.
Howeve, I heard that Norway does Whale Hunting.
I also don't like cigarettes. I heard that lots of people in Europe smoke. My friend told me that Netherlands has good anti-smoking laws.
Germany, France, and pretty much every other country is full of pacifist. However, as beautiful as it is, Italy is in some deep shit. Bersculoni has an entire media empire and he's just like Bush: he doesn't like people telling him he's wrong. He also owns 90 PERCENT of the Media in Italy, which is kind of scary.
However, Russia seems appealing right now. And I think in portugal, drugs are legal.
Overall, I'd go to Netherlands, Norway, Spain, or Russia. There are too many smokers in Germany. I heard half the population smokes there.

seriously, bush steals another 4 years, can you imagine the chaos?
My friend said if bush wins/steals the presi again, he will sell his house and move out of the country. Now, we can't all do it at the same time and expect to be able to fit through the door (all those houses on the market, the borders clogged, immigration held up in Canada, NZ, Mexico).
I want to leave right now. Set up shop and space to invite the american refugees.
For the first time in history, we are thinking like refugees!!!!!
Today I was thinking how courageous the Iraqi people are -- they KNOW when they demonstrate that someone will get shot by the occupiers, yet they go out into the streets anyways. We are kind of panty waists here in the US. I am afraid to get peppersprayed by the cops for protesting.

there are many people here saying there is going to be a landslide against bush in 2004, there is no way bush can win, keep up hope, we are going to win the election, but he has the power to rig the election.

just in case. Although Canadians plead with us to stay and fight, because they too fear Bush.

canada is next after america. Once they have control of america locked down tight they will aim towards canada. it might even be worse in canada than it will be here, they have to treat america with kid gloves and not be too obvious. but when they finally do control america and americans are firmly on their side they might just declare war on canada.

Fight the corporatists by making our message all MARKETING (corporate), through and through. But wait, remember these are 'sheeple' and so will be manipulated with a certain contempt (uh, a feel-good contempt).
It's so 1993, and using brands for your comprehension, so CNN/FOX.
It's like trying to combat misogyny by getting people to read J.K. Rowling books.

Ahhnold--YOU SHALL NOT PASS! I am calling on The Ents! The wizards! The witches and the elves!

Posted by: Amos at October 12, 2003 at 03:47 AM

Good grief, what a pathetic argument. "Our policies aren't miserable failures because they're bad - people are just TOO STUPID to realize that we know what's best for them!" And this from someone who can't understand basic statistics. Well, as someone with two grad school degrees and an IQ of 157 who just happens to be a very conservative Christian, I challenge her to explain ME away.

I also notice that her screwy numbers, plus her weird assumption that anyone not in the top 20% of the bell curve is "not very bright", result in one of two situations:

1. Only "not very bright" people are Republicans + "not very bright" people are at least 80% of the population = Democrats are at most 20% of the population


2. Assuming she agrees that all those who voted for Gore are Democrats, the fact that Gore voters counted for much more than 20% of the vote means she believes that most members of her party are "not very bright".

Perhaps not exactly what she meant to say, but there you go.

Posted by: Tia at October 12, 2003 at 04:06 AM

To DU's credit, most of the commenters are slagging the initial post pretty hard, with counters ranging from the entirely correct "WTF is wrong with you?" to the pragmatic "this shit'll win us zero votes".

Posted by: Dylan at October 12, 2003 at 04:17 AM

Dylan, that's good news. It's good to hear about *some* glimmerings of reason over there.

Posted by: John Nowak at October 12, 2003 at 05:37 AM

As a former leftist myself, I can tell you the problem is not intellectual, it's ideological: either you're a capitalist (or capitalist instrument--e.g., a tax attorney or mainstream journalist) or you're one of the exploited masses.

And what member of the non-capitalist class--who wasn't either ignorant, stupid, and/or brainwashed--would support a system that gives him only the crumbs from the table? The hard left, like the DU poster, sees itself as intellectually superior because it can see through bullshit straight into the matrix. Noam Chomsky is like their modern day Morpheus.

But who is their Neo?

Posted by: S.A. Smith at October 12, 2003 at 06:11 AM

Hmmm...it must have been the Radiation Disaster of 1996 that lowered the IQs of all the voters...as I'm sure this same logic did not apply when Clinton was voted into office in 1994, with both a Democratic House and Senate.

Damn that Radiation!!!!

Posted by: Jerry at October 12, 2003 at 10:30 AM

I read the posts. Strange.

First of all, a lot of those folks refuse to believe what they've seen and heard with their own eyes - if the NYTimes says it differently (e.g., 9-11 = Iraq connection issue). They also seem to completely ignore the years 1993 - 2000 when their folks were "in power." A lot got done, despite their sloppy president.

Secondly, what is their point? Seems to me that they're interested in "gaining power" over the serfs. This I do not understand - I understand it, yeah, but what possibly do they want to do? Execute anyone who votes Republican?

Boggles the mind.

Posted by: Dave Masters Degree at October 12, 2003 at 12:02 PM

"I really like Norway...I heard it is like a socialist country. But then again, the taxes are really high."


Posted by: aaron at October 12, 2003 at 01:03 PM

The misunderstanding of statistics reminds me of another story. Not long ago, here in California, a school administrator went to the press and was alarmed that on standardized tests, 50% of the students in the school district scored below average!

Posted by: perfectsense at October 12, 2003 at 01:32 PM

Theodopoulos Pherecydes --

Polling data by educational breakdown among voters, over the last 30 years, generally shows that higher levels of education correlate with increased Republican voting.

There is exactly one exception to this. While holders of Masters degrees (and thus most post-bacchelaureates) are the most solidly Republican voters, people with PhDs vote Democrat in numbers only matched by those who did not complete high school.

Democrats arge that this is because *really* smart people support liberal policies; Republicans argue that this is because academics are insulated from the real world.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at October 12, 2003 at 02:31 PM

National Public Radio, NPR, is the Democratic Underground.

Posted by: wallace at October 12, 2003 at 03:59 PM

Warmongering Lunatic --

I think what's going on there is that *really* smart people have a tendency to grossly overestimate how well things would work if we just put all the *really* smart people in charge of everything.

Posted by: Chip at October 12, 2003 at 04:42 PM

The relation between educational level and political leaning is interesting, but I'd like to see the original study before I spent to much time speculating about it.

Posted by: John Nowak at October 12, 2003 at 05:37 PM

Anyone who spends any time around academics will not be surprised at their leftist bias - it is naked self-interest. Most of those who stay in the universities do so because they are unable or unwilling to find employment in the real world, and hence are dependent on handouts, just like the poor. They certainly don't stay in the ivory tower for the pay. My colleagues who have worked with PhD's all bemoan their lack of practicality in solving real, technical problems under realistic contraints of cost, time and resource availability.

Posted by: Clem Snide at October 12, 2003 at 06:04 PM

Oddly enough most people in prison in the US vote Democrat. You might say that Democrats have the prison vote locked up. Heh heh

Posted by: Harry at October 12, 2003 at 06:17 PM

That's amazing, Harry, since felons aren't allowed to vote in the US.

Posted by: R C Dean at October 12, 2003 at 11:00 PM

Depends, Dean. The states are the ones who decide whether felons can vote or not, not the Feds. In Massachusetts, they can even vote while in prison. Just because a guy's a multiple rapist and serial killer doesn't mean you can take away his rights, after all. (The rights of his victims? Who cares about them, they all probably vote Republican anyhow.)

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at October 12, 2003 at 11:43 PM

Aaron, even better:

"My friend told me that Netherlands has good anti-smoking laws."


Posted by: Sasha Castel at October 12, 2003 at 11:47 PM

"They cater and pander to the masses."

I thought it was the Dems who always said they were the party of the working man, of the masses, of the labor class, of the average blue-collar joe?

These dolts can't even keep their rhetoric straight.

Posted by: Aaron at October 13, 2003 at 12:46 AM

Here's a suggestion for the guy looking for a socialistic, low-tax, pacifistic, smoke-free environment.

Posted by: Randal Robinson at October 13, 2003 at 01:41 AM

Left leaning PhDs: it would be interesting to subdivide the group into academics and private sector. I suspect the private sector people are a little less socialist.

Posted by: Ken Summers at October 13, 2003 at 02:31 AM

Since I am in academia, let me make another suggestion as to voting patterns. I am willing to bet that the plurality of graduate degrees are awarded in Education. Teachers routinely get a nice pay bump for getting an MSEd. They take a couple of classes per summer, do little or nothing (I taught some), get an MSEd and a pay raise. Lotsa school teachers get summers off, you know. Plus, if you want to get even better pay, you must get an EdD (Doctor of Educastion, not that any of your classes are in subject material or education). Principals, Superintendents, etc all need EdD.

The NEA and the FTA are, with AFSCME, the most reliable unions in the Democratic alliance. All three are dependent on government largesse. Thus, if we even assume (trust me, I don't) that all the other grad degrees would split along the national lines of 34% R, 33% D, 32% I, the mere presence of all those education establishment types would swing the majority well into Democratic territory. Any study that doesn't test for profession is way out of whack.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at October 13, 2003 at 07:47 AM

Ohhh...I just can't decide what to wear tonight...

The over-the-shoulder Average Joe or the full-length The Masses...

Dear, what do you think the people who really matter, the one's at DU will be wearing tonight?

Help me, dear, I simply can't be out-kooked by a kook!

Posted by: TimothyL at October 13, 2003 at 02:59 PM

We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve.

My IQ is 133. Just imagine its lofty heights if I hung out with this crowd.

Posted by: Tongue Boy at October 14, 2003 at 12:31 AM

I've noticed this a lot with young liberals - and to a certain extent young people in general. They think most people are stupid. In reality, most people are different. I also find it interesting that they hate Bush so passionately when his only crime is that his politics are different. The people on DU are so angry that he would dare believe in ideas contrast to their own that they have to hate him even on a personal level. And I thought being liberal meant being open-minded.

Posted by: Cool Tester at October 14, 2003 at 06:09 AM