Sam Harris

Guest, I am incredulous. We are obviously living in two realities. You actually said: “Which major news source are you watching or reading that hasn’t bending to the administration’s will for nearly five years?”

Ha, that would be Fox News. Other than that, you will hear mostly reports on the Bush admin that range from negative to scathing.

Ummm, “Even disregarding the lingering likelihood of massive voter fraud…”, yes please disregard that tired old notion. “Poorly-educated, easily-manipulated populace…”, Guest, you’re sounding like an elitist (that is what has been getting the libs in trouble). Bush…“consistently manipulated the information that the public received”...wait a minute, are you saying that Dan Rather, Jennings, Brokow, Chris Matthews, Scarborogh, Dobbs, and the like were manipulated? If so, it seemed to me that they had a hard time concealing their outright dislike for the Repubs this time around.

“That the better-educated, multi-cultural parts of the nation were the predominantly Democratic parts….”, there goes that elitist thing again. If you look at the election county by county, the great majority of counties voted for Bush. Are you saying that only the red counties were the better educated, multi-cultural parts? (don’t answer, nuff said)

“Second, with two parties, most people are not represented, and only vote based on severe compromise….”. Well, for once, we agree on something.

“And, our educational system provides exactly what any student of Democracy knows: it only works with an educated populace….”. Are you saying that the US is not an educated populace? The folks in the blue counties are dumb, so I guess, 90% of the country is uneducated and dumb?

Guest, I think things are better than what you portray. The system works well, been working for over 200 years. I think we’re ok. People are accusing both sides of miss-direction and the like. But I think there are enough news sources out there so a citizen can find out all the facts and make good decisions on our leaders. I’ve got to tell you, I think the country made the better choice the past two presidential elections. Bush, though he does not have a silver spoon in his mouth, he exudes a certain grace under pressure, benevolence toward his detractors, all the while being very strong and firm in his resolve to protect America and her interests. I liken him to FDR.

And, like FDR, he’s destroying Social Security.
Oh, wait.

We ought to look at those who suffer from poor education and aspire to educate them.  Admitting our better-educated perspective is not elitist unless we contrive to keep ourselves in this “superior” position, like the Republicans in power who are happy to give options to the wealthy while offering damn little where its needed, and universally worsening the lot for educators who want to teach instead of preach.

And I am saying that the propaganda of the Right has been tireless and widespread, dominating even the network news, which you suppose to be Liberal, based on their attempts at reason and objectivity.

If you want to engage in this conversation, learn Red from Blue.  Blue: Democrat.  Red: Republican. (Ironic, on May Day.)  Look at the map:  Urban and educational centers were predominantly Democratic.

90%?  about 25% of legal voters actually (supposedly) voted for Bush the Dumber.  (Do the math - about half the populace voted, and about half of them voted for your boy.)  That this translated into a larger land mass doesn’t equate to a different number of people.  It’s people who vote, you see—not patches of ground.
Ignorance and stupidity, it should be noted, are two different things.  Yes, most Americans are isolated and ignorant.  To some extent, everyone is.  But those with access to information and who experience interaction with more people from more diverse backgrounds have a broader, ergo less ignorant, perspective.  Like people who get all their information from one book know less than those who get information from various sources, contemporary and historical.

Things are not better than I portray when our “leader”—born with a silver spoon in his mouth (another concept you have backward)—is a born-again, bring-on-the-rapture maniac.  Comparing him to FDR is probably an insult to both of them.  Mostly because FDR built social programs, instead of raping them and casting them aside.

Other than that, great response.

FDR had to rebuild the economy. It was a different and frightening time for folks. Plus, he was a war president. Bush is trying to do some wonderful things and I support him. I think the problem is that over the course of so many years, the problems that government enacted to help folks grew so big that they threaten to derail the health of the economy. Somewhere we need a balance and it is hard to achieve.

Here in California we have a very powerful dem controlled government who for years has spent A LOT more than they took in, due to all these entitlements and gov programs. So now we’ve been about 8 billion or more over budget for a few years and everyone is screaming but nobody is doing anything. It will take some nasty cuts and some will get hurt, but I think ARRRRRnold has the right idea. We simply cannot spend more than we take in! But, the dem controlled government won’t budge. So I guess we’ll implode eventually. Get ready, the lion’s share of your check and a whole lot of others are going to help bailout California after our state economy is completely broke down and chaos in the streets begin.

Maybe taxing the rich could be considered.
Note how the current administration refuses to do so while subtley (and not so subtley) finding more ways to screw the lower classes.
If you refuse to see this, I hope you’re making a fairly large salary.  At least then, greed could explain your blindness.
Jesus, as they say, was a Socialist.

[quote author=“TheChampion”]Dems have blocked access to faith based people in the HIGHER COURTS, the ones with the real power.

You have perfectly summed up the objections of the far right to the democrat filibuster. It’s about power. The “faith-based” accusation just doesn’t hold water, unless you want to believe that all the other judges who had bipartisan confirmation were not “people of faith”. The expressions “faith-based people” and “people of faith” are code for radical religious right.

The nominees for the most powerful judgeships should be held to more careful scrutiny. The Senate has been turned into a big rubber stamp for the administration. These are exactly the circumstances that the filibuster was created for. It was time for someone to apply the brakes and the republicans had both feet hard on the gas. But you can only ignore half of the voting population for so long. All this over 10 nominees. It cannot be that there are not 10 other potential nominees that meet the approval of the republican party.

No, this is all about power. The republicans have to have things exactly their way or not at all. And as TC said above, they want to put the most ideologically motivated people, members of the radical religious right, in the positions with the greatest power.

On the other hand, the only way republicans can currently take it away would require highly questionable means and it is apparent that a solid majority of the population agrees with the democratic position. I don’t think the republicans have the guts to buck public opinion that way. They talk a good game and try to twist things around, but in the end, the democrats are in the right and they know it.

[quote author=“Nupraptor”]I’m all for a balance, but not simply for its own sake.  What good does it do to assume your opponents are immune to persuasion?

It’s not an assumption. It has been amply demonstrated.