Oklahoma Shariah Ban Is Blocked

[']['ear]

Elitist. Though I commend you for speaking truly on how you view the world. If only more liberals would speak that way to the American people! It would fantastic to actually have a conservative government.

You'd prefer false modesty? Maybe I should post like an ignorant noob with an IQ of 90, who didn't finish high school? Horse shit. That's ass kissing false modesty. I'm a helluva lot smarter and better educated than vast majority of humanity. Pretending to be a bit simple and dropping the Gs off of the end of my words would just be crass manipulation, a trait which you apparently prefer to actual talent.

[Lewkowski]

You'd prefer false modesty? Maybe I should post like an ignorant noob with an IQ of 90, who didn't finish high school? Horse shit. That's ass kissing false modesty. I'm a helluva lot smarter and better educated than vast majority of humanity. Pretending to be a bit simple and dropping the Gs off of the end of my words would just be crass manipulation, a trait which you apparently prefer to actual talent.

I sure wish more liberals were as honest as you. Sadly we only get brief peeks at their massive egos and elitist views. Such as when Obama talked about people "clinging" to their guns and religion, we saw briefly into the contempt he has for Americans, imagine how the election would have gone if he always talked that way?

[Illusions]

Elitist. Though I commend you for speaking truly on how you view the world. If only more liberals would speak that way to the American people! It would fantastic to actually have a conservative government.

Its quite apparent that I don't know everything there is to know, and it appears to be the same for everyone else, so yes, people are ignorant about certain things. Ignorance is an objective term for a lack of knowledge, not intelligence. Can you honestly say that you were 100% informed and knowledgeable about every issue and person you voted for in the recent election? Do you think the majority of American voters were?

[']['ear]

Elitist.

Yeah, I've got elitist for you.

[Loki]

And yet the voters in many other countries are willing to make the trade-offs I mentioned. The general public in most countries is uninformed, but at least it's willing to realize that everything has costs and benefits. The American public has never learned that reality.

[']['ear]

Why would that be? Really, why the US and not other developed countries?

[Loki]

Why would that be? Really, why the US and not other developed countries?

God knows. I do know that Greece enacted sharp spending cuts and the socialist government did well in local elections. The current government in Britain won on a platform of making specific spending cuts (and tax increases). The Latvian government got reelected after severe spending cuts (and a double digit decrease in GDP). Merkel and Sarkozy are promising specific budget cuts, and though they've seen their ratings drop, they still have a shot at winning. In the US, no one even dares to make the argument that we need spending cuts and tax increases (or at least, they refuse to make specific proposals). And again, the problem isn't so much that the people are uninformed; it's that they expect some magical solution to the current problems, which anyone with half a brain should realize is not going to happen.

The interesting that is that until the '60s, both parties supported a balanced budget. The Democrats were willing to achieve it by tax increases and the Republicans by spending cuts, but neither seriously considered running a deficit to accomplish their objectives. I'm not sure if they did this due to public pressure (probably not), but they did it nevertheless. Then Kennedy started the ball rolling and things have only gotten worse (with the only real improvement coming from Bush Sr. and Clinton).

[']['ear]

We agree for the most part. But proportionately you can't say it got crazy until Reagan. But at least he had the (flimsy) excuse of putting pressure on the Soviets as a Cold War gambit. W pretty much had no excuse. And the GOP for the most part ran this last time on the platform of continuing the W tax cuts. Pure insanity.

[Loki]

We agree for the most part. But proportionately you can't say it got crazy until Reagan. But at least he had the (flimsy) excuse of putting pressure on the Soviets as a Cold War gambit. W pretty much had no excuse. And the GOP for the most part ran this last time on the platform of continuing the W tax cuts. Pure insanity.

The point is that once you decide that it's ok to run a deficit during non-recessions, you open the floodgates, and it was only a matter of time before "tolerable" levels increased from 1% of GDP to where we are now.

[Steely Glint]

[Supermarioman]

You can disagree with Lewk, but responding with inane comics does nothing more than prove his point.

[agamemnus]

Than.

[Steely Glint]

Why shouldn't we look down on people who are stupid, again? For example, every time I read one of your posts, I look down on you because you're an idiot. Does this make me an elitist?

ps. I'm looking down my nose at you right now.

[Loki]

I think the problem with "elitists" is that often times they're just as ignorant as the people they feel superior to, the only difference being that the elitists are the "elite" in some unrelated field (i.e. someone's a good artist, therefore they think they're superior to uneducated people when it comes to political beliefs).

[Steely Glint]

Why is that a 'problem'? Sure, those people are irritating but you can just tell them to shut up, I fail to see what actual harm they cause. What is a problem is a culture that celebrates ignorance and (often willful) stupidity, and is suspicious of knowledge and expertise.

[Lewkowski]

Why is that a 'problem'? Sure, those people are irritating but you can just tell them to shut up, I fail to see what actual harm they cause. What is a problem is a culture that celebrates ignorance and (often willful) stupidity, and is suspicious of knowledge and expertise.

It is a problem when that mentality breeds the attitude that people need to be forced to follow the guidance of the "elites." Ie slavery via government regulation and control.

[Loki]

Why is that a 'problem'? Sure, those people are irritating but you can just tell them to shut up, I fail to see what actual harm they cause. What is a problem is a culture that celebrates ignorance and (often willful) stupidity, and is suspicious of knowledge and expertise.

Because they then vote to impose their own misguided beliefs upon others.

[Steely Glint]

Because they then vote to impose their own misguided beliefs upon others.

Them and everyone else in the voting population.

While I agree that people who don't know shit are a problem for a functioning democracy, I'd ask you who are the bigger problem:

a) Those who think they know stuff, but actually don't know shit.
b) Those who know they don't know shit, and are proud of it.

[Loki]

Them and everyone else in the voting population.

While I agree that people who don't know shit are a problem for a functioning democracy, I'd ask you who are the bigger problem:

a) Those who think they know stuff, but actually don't know shit.
b) Those who know they don't know shit, and are proud of it.

I prefer people who are dumb but don't try to force their ways upon others than people who are smart imposing their beliefs.

[Steely Glint]

It is a problem when that mentality breeds the attitude that people need to be forced to follow the guidance of the "elites." Ie slavery via government regulation and control.

Stripped of the emotive language, your post actually says "hurgle burgle gooh-gah freedom". I am continuing to look down my nose at you.

[Steely Glint]

By imposing their beliefs, you mean "voting"?

[Loki]

By imposing their beliefs, you mean "voting"?

Believe it or not, one can vote for politicians who don't promise to "persuade" other people how to act, how to spend their money, what to eat, what to drive, where to work, what to buy, etc.

[Steely Glint]

You have a problem with people voting for politicians who want to pass laws? Or only laws that you disapprove of? If you're complaining about politicians who want to legislate morality, either conservatives passing laws about who you can marry or sleep with, or leftists ('liberal' hardly seems appropriate in this context) passing nanny state legislation* then I'm against either but I don't regard them as any less of a legitimate outcome of the democratic process than any other policy I might happen to disagree with.

* though many people like to try and conflate laws passed to stop people harming themselves with laws passed to stop them harming other people, e.g. laws about smoking in public and drink driving laws. You have the right to endanger your own life and well being as you see fit, you have none to endanger the lives of people around you - some of our posters e.g. oldmunchkin and to a lesser extent Cain seem to have a problem with this distinction.

[Loki]

You have a problem with people voting for politicians who want to pass laws? Or only laws that you disapprove of? If you're complaining about politicians who want to legislate morality, either conservatives passing laws about who you can marry or sleep with, or leftists ('liberal' hardly seems appropriate in this context) passing nanny state legislation* then I'm against either but I don't regard them as any less of a legitimate outcome of the democratic process than any other policy I might happen to disagree with.

Just because something is democratic doesn't mean we can't disapprove of it..

* though many people like to try and conflate laws passed to stop people harming themselves with laws passed to stop them harming other people, e.g. laws about smoking in public and drink driving laws. You have the right to endanger your own life and well being as you see fit, you have none to endanger the lives of people around you - some of our posters e.g. oldmunchkin and to a lesser extent Cain seem to have a problem with this distinction.

You also have the "right" to give up half your income, the "right" to pay higher prices for foreign products (i.e. due to tariffs), the "right" to pay higher prices for domestic products (i.e. due to minimum wage laws and numerous overly burdensome regulations), the "right" to give up a chunk of your income to people who can't be bothered to work, the "right" to pay more for foods that are unhealthy, the "right" to be bullied into joining a union, the "right" to be bullied into hiring unionized workers, and the "right" to have your savings lose half their value because of the government deciding to give money to everyone and their dog.

[Steely Glint]

Just because something is democratic doesn't mean we can't disapprove of it..

Right, so we both agree that we don't like laws to be passed that we don't like, and we've even found a subcategory of laws that we both agree that we disagree with. What does this have to do with elitists, again?

You also have the "right" to give up half your income, the "right" to pay higher prices for foreign products (i.e. due to tariffs), the "right" to pay higher prices for domestic products (i.e. due to minimum wage laws and numerous overly burdensome regulations), the "right" to give up a chunk of your income to people who can't be bothered to work, the "right" to pay more for foods that are unhealthy, the "right" to be bullied into joining a union, the "right" to be bullied into hiring unionized workers, and the "right" to have your savings lose half their value because of the government deciding to give money to everyone and their dog.

Does this paragraph even have a point?

[Loki]

Because elitists want laws passed that not only affect every part of other people's lives, but also significantly limit the options available to those people. I don't see why that's better than a dumb person who votes for the government to leave them alone.

[Hazir]

Because elitists want laws passed that not only affect every part of other people's lives, but also significantly limit the options available to those people. I don't see why that's better than a dumb person who votes for the government to leave them alone.

Excuse me? Where are these people that vote against 'elitists' in order for government to leave them alone? Very often the very same people who want the government to bud out of their wallet and gun rack, are the same people who want to inject the very same government into the bedroom and at the switches in hospitals. Never mind desiring bans on flag burnings or the like. Seems to me that it's only 'elitist' when it's the other side of the aile speaking.

[']['ear]

I think the problem with "elitists" is that often times they're just as ignorant as the people they feel superior to, the only difference being that the elitists are the "elite" in some unrelated field (i.e. someone's a good artist, therefore they think they're superior to uneducated people when it comes to political beliefs).

When obviously we should all defer to political scientists, right?

Yeah, I think I'm superior to some dumbass who can't even identify the relevant issues or the position of his candidates/party on those issues, or somebody who gets manipulated by transparent push polls or dirty politics. I'm superior to an asshole who can mouth pieties about being a "freedom voter" while denying the right of any two consenting and loving adults to marry and raise a family. I look down on hopelessly naive and ignorant voting based on a knee jerk stoked by some unscrupulous politician. I also look down on the educated people jerking their knees about this issue and that, because they're too fracking lazy to actually do some research and think hard about the complexities of an issue, in spite of having the blessing of brains to do so. Yes, here I'm looking at my well educated and intelligent mother, who has never been able to abide the least criticism of Israel "because of the Holocaust."

But let's be clear: I don't look down on such donkeys because of their ignorance. I look down on them because they a) they are either too dumb, too gullible, or too lazy (or all three) to do the due dilligence, but b) will still trumpet their beliefs to the high heavens and parade around with offensive banners deemed clever by their dim little minds, spattering their neighbors with spittle as they scream slogans whose impacts they don't understand. Their ignorance is not their offense. Their offense is that they consider their opinions born of plain old ignorance to be worthy of public airing, and that they willfully inflict said opinions at the ballot box. There's a profound arrogance in that.

And these days it is the GOP that excels at using this tactic. In a previous time it was the Democrats, which is why I, a child of the 70s, ardently opposed them earlier in my life. But the modern GOP has sold its soul to the devil by banking on this widespread American trait that I abhor. Example: they campaign on lower taxes, smaller government and balanced budgets, while they as a party have practically single-handedly created our massive debt. The GOP has attacked Obama for being a deficit builder while at the same time insisting that the grossly irresponsible Bush tax cuts be made permanent.

No, I don't blame the ignorant out there for being ignorant. But I do blame people who can't see through the thinnest veil of smoke. It's like some dumbass is watching a magician who is openly holding a coin in one hand, then openly places it in the other. The people I look down on are the ones who gasp in amazement at the magic trick of making a coin appear.

[Lewkowski]

Excuse me? Where are these people that vote against 'elitists' in order for government to leave them alone? Very often the very same people who want the government to bud out of their wallet and gun rack, are the same people who want to inject the very same government into the bedroom and at the switches in hospitals. Never mind desiring bans on flag burnings or the like. Seems to me that it's only 'elitist' when it's the other side of the aile speaking.

Like I said there are some conservative elitists too. (These tend to be moral elitists as opposed to "intellectual" elitist but either way don't force people to conform - sure try to convince them but don't do it at the point of a gun) For the freedom folks out there both parties have their big brother nonsense. The Democrats IMO are worse since they are more all encompassing, money is a great medium for freedom because you can do so much with it, if you have less of it your options are choices become extremely limited.

[GGT]

Like I said there are some conservative elitists too. (These tend to be moral elitists as opposed to "intellectual" elitist but either way don't force people to conform - sure try to convince them but don't do it at the point of a gun) For the freedom folks out there both parties have their big brother nonsense. The Democrats IMO are worse since they are more all encompassing, money is a great medium for freedom because you can do so much with it, if you have less of it your options are choices become extremely limited.

Then you are a conservative elitist? Because you want to see people thrown in jail, or shot, as a deterrent to crime.

Yeah, those with less money (or economic freeeedom) might do stupid desperate things. Like lifting a tube of $2 toothpaste.

You just have the notion of a Good Big Brother threatening jail, or Good Guns threatening harm or death.