Christine O'Donnell doesn't know what the First Amendment is

[nathan1977]

I have a feeling, and I know I'll be playing right into Hannity's hands when I say this, and he can call me an elite if he wants to, but it will be between the thinking and non-thinking class. Not the educated vs non-educated but the thinking vs the non-thinking. Those that form an opinion and then gather information to uphold that opinion and those that sift through all the information and form an opinion.

One of the definitions of a democracy is the ability to create and engage in robust debate with people who hold radically different views, and to try to form consensus. I'm a little nervous about this perspective you're espousing -- and, to be fair, you've only softly espoused it. But I get nervous when people start to imply that there is a right or wrong way to think. Particularly because I'm not sure opinions can be divorced from worldviews, and worldviews are formed by individuals on both the Right and the Left (and, for that matter, the Center as well). Worldviews inform opinions, and I find that people on the Right and the Left hold to those opinions and worldviews regardless of what the facts are. Further, it's human nature to gather with people of similar life experiences or shared opinions or whatever. We believe what seems right to us, and we find information to support that belief. This is true even in FYM (though I find there to be more name-calling in FYM than in actual human interaction). I'm not sure any of us are truly open-minded, since we all greet the world in incremental stages, influenced by socio-economic factors including our family, our education level, our financial status, the relationships we form, etc. It's idealistic (in the best sense of the word) to think that we greet every issue with an open mind, but I think that reality bears this out differently.

As a result, saying that some people are "thinking" and others are "non-thinking" (which carries an inherent sense of elitism which you seem to at least understand) doesn't necessarily capture what you mean, perhaps. A better classification might be "intellectually curious" and "non-intellectually curious." There are far fewer people in the world really looking to free their minds -- that goes for people on FYM from time to time...

 

[BVS]

Very good post ^

One of the definitions of a democracy is the ability to create and engage in robust debate with people who hold radically different views, and to try to form consensus. I'm a little nervous about this perspective you're espousing -- and, to be fair, you've only softly espoused it. But I get nervous when people start to imply that there is a right or wrong way to think.

I wasn't implying a right or wrong way to think, although one could argue that there is indeed a wrong way to think.

I'm not talking about the end result, I'm talking about the means to which you got there. Have you read, used your life experiences, used available information to shape your opinion? Or are you regurgitating the opinions of others because it sounds like it will work for you as well?

I knew a grown woman who had some very odd beliefs as to how she could get pregnant, purely based on lies her mother told her to scare her from boys. These beliefs lasted with her up until she was 23. She was a non-thinker.

As a result, saying that some people are "thinking" and others are "non-thinking" (which carries an inherent sense of elitism which you seem to at least understand) doesn't necessarily capture what you mean, perhaps. A better classification might be "intellectually curious" and "non-intellectually curious." There are far fewer people in the world really looking to free their minds -- that goes for people on FYM from time to time...

This is all very true, but still think it's a slightly different sentiment then what I was trying to imply.

I do not believe that a more open mind, or one that thinks will lead you to this "side" or that "side".

 

[anitram]

And here chimes in her idiot-in-arms, Sarah, on the firing of Juan Williams:

Painfully, extraordinarily stupid.

 

[anitram]

But I get nervous when people start to imply that there is a right or wrong way to think.

I could agree in principle with this.

But there are wrong and right thoughts. Sarah Palin, for example, is WRONG in her comment above and shows that she fundamentally lacks knowledge and understanding of constitutional freedom of speech. And it's time we called people out on their ignorance. Over and over again, without fearing that somebody will brand us elitists.

 

[the iron horse]

Christine O'Donnell on the Issues | Christine O'Donnell for Senate


What do you think?

 

[deep]

I think I will bow down to Aqua Buddha

 

[the iron horse]

I think I will bow down to Aqua Buddha

Was that one of the issues?

If not, I hope you have thought about who you are bowing to.



"Bow down to the one you serve,
you're gonna get what you desreve."

~NIN

 

[deep]

It is for Tea Party and Libertarian GOP Senate Candidate, Paul Rand.

 

[BVS]

Christine O'Donnell on the Issues | Christine O'Donnell for Senate


What do you think?

I think she's wrong on almost every single one...

 

[the iron horse]

I think she's wrong on almost every single one...

Which one would you like to discuss first?

 

[anitram]

This piece of crap might be a good start:

Believes our country was founded on core values of faith, family and freedom

 

[BVS]

Which one would you like to discuss first?

I'll let you choose. Give me the number one reason that makes you want to vote for her.

 

[the iron horse]

I'll let you choose. Give me the number one reason that makes you want to vote for her.

Ahh, that's not fair.

You were to post a reply to one of the issues posted.

 

[BVS]

Fine:

Believes that the solution to the healthcare crisis is less government meddling in the doctor/patient relationship, more competition in the insurance market and more choice for families about their health plan.

She doesn't understand the insurance market. Insurance companies have lobbied together in order so that they all get reimbursed the same amount. The insurance companies have teamed up with drug companies and device companies and have collectively set the prices. There is no competition, if she wants TRUE competition she would have to meddle and change the laws so that these factions couldn't work collectively.

Oh what a delima

 

[deep]

The argument to let people shop over state lines, buy insurance from any of the 50 states, under the different state's guidelines or lack thereof

will kill people and make filthy rich insurance companies even more filthy rich.


HealthMarkets sued by L.A. city attorney over 'junk insurance' - latimes.com

 

[Canadiens1131]

And here chimes in her idiot-in-arms, Sarah, on the firing of Juan Williams:

Painfully, extraordinarily stupid.

I think it's brilliant, actually

Is the Constitution shaking its fist at Putin, rearing his head?

 

[martha]

Ahh, that's not fair.

You were to post a reply to one of the issues posted.

You're schooling someone about answering posts?

lol

 

[BVS]

The irony is strong with this one...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I could agree in principle with this.

But there are wrong and right thoughts. Sarah Palin, for example, is WRONG in her comment above and shows that she fundamentally lacks knowledge and understanding of constitutional freedom of speech. And it's time we called people out on their ignorance. Over and over again, without fearing that somebody will brand us elitists.

Exactly.

I find it incredibly funny that the Republicans are calling people elitist-aren't they the ones who've been having "purity tests" in the last couple years to see who is a "true Republican"? And isn't the word "rich", something which pretty much every Republican politician can claim to be, often associated with the word "elite"?

Also, Sarah.... Get over yourself, please.

Angela

 

[PhilsFan]

Strongly believes in protecting the sanctity of life at ALL stages.

How long until she comes out for the death penalty?

 

[bigjohn2441]

"Constitution" is just a buzzword for this crowd, they don't actually get it or understand it.

kind of like how "racist" is the buzzword for the left?

but i agree with you. i imagine a lot of these people that throw out the constitution in an arguement dont know what they are talking about.

and as for o'donnell, just another full-of-shit, partisan hack politician to me. i guess you could ad "dipshit" in with "full-of-shit" as well.

 

[Irvine511]

I think it's brilliant, actually

Is the Constitution shaking its fist at Putin, rearing his head?

i'm sure she spent all morning on that.

 

[maycocksean]

One of the definitions of a democracy is the ability to create and engage in robust debate with people who hold radically different views, and to try to form consensus. I'm a little nervous about this perspective you're espousing -- and, to be fair, you've only softly espoused it. But I get nervous when people start to imply that there is a right or wrong way to think. Particularly because I'm not sure opinions can be divorced from worldviews, and worldviews are formed by individuals on both the Right and the Left (and, for that matter, the Center as well). Worldviews inform opinions, and I find that people on the Right and the Left hold to those opinions and worldviews regardless of what the facts are. Further, it's human nature to gather with people of similar life experiences or shared opinions or whatever. We believe what seems right to us, and we find information to support that belief. This is true even in FYM (though I find there to be more name-calling in FYM than in actual human interaction). I'm not sure any of us are truly open-minded, since we all greet the world in incremental stages, influenced by socio-economic factors including our family, our education level, our financial status, the relationships we form, etc. It's idealistic (in the best sense of the word) to think that we greet every issue with an open mind, but I think that reality bears this out differently.

As a result, saying that some people are "thinking" and others are "non-thinking" (which carries an inherent sense of elitism which you seem to at least understand) doesn't necessarily capture what you mean, perhaps. A better classification might be "intellectually curious" and "non-intellectually curious." There are far fewer people in the world really looking to free their minds -- that goes for people on FYM from time to time...

I hear what you're saying but I do think that as a whole our nation is becoming increasingly entertainment-oriented and intellectually lazy. It's less an issue of open and closed minds and more of fringe nonsense gaining traction with mainstream as well as the uncritical acceptance of hyperbolic statements of questionable accuracy (for example the government is "meddling with doctor/patient relationship." Can someone explain to me how this is happening?)

Look, when Bush was in office the fringe lefties that were arguing that Bush was a war criminal and should be brought to trial and what not didn't gain any real mainstream traction. What bothers me is that the right wing lunatics--the ones arguing that Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen are actually gaining traction with ordinary people.

 

[the iron horse]

maycocksean said:

"What bothers me is that the right wing lunatics--the ones arguing that Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen are actually gaining traction with ordinary people."


What is it?

You don't get?

That some people are tired of big government intrusion.

I am in awe at how some members here are so willing
to bow down to a all intrusive central government.

 

[PhilsFan]

maycocksean said:

"What bothers me is that the right wing lunatics--the ones arguing that Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen are actually gaining traction with ordinary people."


What is it?

You don't get?

That some people are tired of big government intrusion.

I am in awe at how some members here are so willing
to bow down to a all intrusive central government.

I'm concerned about you.

 

[maycocksean]

maycocksean said:

"What bothers me is that the right wing lunatics--the ones arguing that Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen are actually gaining traction with ordinary people."


What is it?

You don't get?

That some people are tired of big government intrusion.

I am in awe at how some members here are so willing
to bow down to a all intrusive central government.

Iron Horse.

I'm a regular person. I'm a teacher at a private Christian school. I'm a member of a conservative Christian denomination. I don't make a lot of money, but I feel that I and my family have a good life.

I'm trying. . .really trying. . .to identify how big government has "intruded" in my life or that of anyone I know at all in my lifetime, particularly during the last year and a half of this administration. I'm sorry. I just can't come up with anything. I'm left to conclude that this talk about the encroaching big government is exactly that--talk, scare tactics, not based on any objective--or even subjective--reality.

Furthermore, I fail to see how absurd theories like "Obama is really a Muslim" and "Obama is not really an American citizen" relate to an increasingly intrusive central government.

 

[martha]

maycocksean said:

"What bothers me is that the right wing lunatics--the ones arguing that Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen are actually gaining traction with ordinary people."


What is it?

You don't get?

That some people are tired of big government intrusion.

I am in awe at how some members here are so willing
to bow down to a all intrusive central government.

Why did you cite that particular statement for the context of your question?

Were you all up in arms when the Patriot Act was passed? Or is it only "intrusive central government" when a Muslim foreigner is president?

Don't worry. I don't expect an answer.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Our government has frustrated me. Angered me. They have indeed done things I do not agree with, things I would question. And some of the individual members of the government are worthy of some serious concern, as they hold some deeply unsettling views.

But I'm sorry, I just can't get that scared of them to the point where I think they're going to take over every last aspect of our lives and we'll live in some totalitarian/fascist/whatever state. For one thing, I do have enough faith in the public to feel that we'll never allow it to get to that point-for all the apathy and cynicism, we do know how to stick up for ourselves when necessary. For another, I'm just not that paranoid a person (which is funny, given how I do tend to be a bit of a worrywart sometimes). I'll certainly always keep an eye on our government, no matter what party, no matter who it is, and I'll make any disagreement (which is always going to happen, no government will ever please every single person) I can, but they have to show themselves to be unworthy of my trust first before I can start freaking out and scaring myself and others silly about what they may or may not do down the line. That's kinda how it is with people in general in this world-you know, innocent until proven guilty?

I hear what you're saying but I do think that as a whole our nation is becoming increasingly entertainment-oriented and intellectually lazy. It's less an issue of open and closed minds and more of fringe nonsense gaining traction with mainstream as well as the uncritical acceptance of hyperbolic statements of questionable accuracy (for example the government is "meddling with doctor/patient relationship." Can someone explain to me how this is happening?)

Look, when Bush was in office the fringe lefties that were arguing that Bush was a war criminal and should be brought to trial and what not didn't gain any real mainstream traction. What bothers me is that the right wing lunatics--the ones arguing that Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen are actually gaining traction with ordinary people.

Bingo. Thank you.

It's also confusing because when people called Bush a "war criminal", they were called unpatriotic. I'm not hearing that same accusation towards those who are saying blatantly untrue things about Obama, and I'm curious why that is.

Angela

 

[indra]

It's also confusing because when people called Bush a "war criminal", they were called unpatriotic. I'm not hearing that same accusation towards those who are saying blatantly untrue things about Obama, and I'm curious why that is.

Angela

Could it be because the same people who called the Bush-is-a-war-criminal folks unpatriotic are also spreading the lies about Obama?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Could it be because the same people who called the Bush-is-a-war-criminal folks unpatriotic are also spreading the lies about Obama?

Oh, of course-it's a pretty safe bet they're one and the same. I just wonder why we're not hearing more people outside of that particular group calling them unpatriotic?

Angela