Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Does Truth Have A Future In America?

Some say, Are you implying that I am ...anti-American?

Are broad-brush criticisms, supported by broad-brush and shallow information, and defended by uncompleted aspersions, considered to be critical thinking?

Does the truth have a future in America? What does that mean? Or is this just another vague, noomie-esque scattershot of negative jibber jabber at the U.S.?

It seems that you are having that reading comprehension issue again. Please look into it.

Well, I certainly do not believe that "morons have a right to an opinion, no matter how absurd or imbecilic that opinion might be." However, as a matter of practical politics, one must take the opinions of morons into account, since they make up such a large percentage of the population.

I am in favor of educating morons, when possible, though past history indicates that this is a forlorn enterprise.

It is scarcely possible "to ignore the absurd and imbecilic when we make important decisions," since, so often, in America, it is the absurd and imbecilic who are making the important decisions.

noomie, you and zekemon seem to be obsessed with the notion that morons and imbeciles are running the country. When I exercised a modicum of critical thinking in questioning the broad-brush nature of some of those statements, fully realizing that it is anti-American to do so, your better half (I use this terminology based on the obvious formation of yourselves into a duprass) responded with several statements that have the appearance of being moronic and imbecilic. Logic dictates that you consider your colleague to be qualified as an American Leader.

Read carefully now, for what I am about to say may be a bit difficult for your class to follow...

In order for one to become a moronic and imbecilic decision-maker in the U.S., one must run for, and win, an elected office. Anyone out there ever done that? Anyone who has, or has seriously considered it, who is not and imbecile/moron, has faced a sobering proposition. For an example, my town has an upcoming election for two seats on the Town Council. The two incumbents are generally acknowledged to be M/I's, and they have both thrown their hats back into the ring. No one else in the active districts, myself included, chose to run. A few of the reasons have to do with not wanting to spend two evenings each month in meetings lasting from 6:00PM to oftentimes 1:00AM, trying to sort out the M/I actions of both the council and a host of residents, and having to be accosted by the same M/I's by phone or in person in-between times over a two-year term of office.

The twitcher is this; what can you conclude about a person who sits back constantly taking blunderblustery potshots at the decision-makers, a person who hasn't ever made a move to be a decision-maker himherself? I gather that noomie ran, but not for public office - he just ran away to another country and smugly takes potshots across the border through Reader Rant.

(I have my fingers crossed that zekemon finds a way to not make an M/I comment in response to this post).

'
1. Penny-ante political offices in hick towns are completely different from high offices in the national government -- or even in state governments.

2. Politicans must learn -- and master well -- a few tricks in order to bamboozle the public and get elected. Those tricks are pretty much antithetical to the skills needed to make intelligent and far-reaching decisions for the Public Good.

3. The political puppets who are "selected" for public office by the REAL rulers of America are chosen from a small group of carefully vetted candidates for the huckster sideshow known as an "American election", and are tied up tight in a web of obligations to their Real Masters, so that the essential interests of the Rich and Powerful are never seriously threatened.

noomie, I jist swoon at your high drama and hyperbole! (And it ain't fattening, like chocolate.)

No need... you've already done it for me - for which I thank you

I think it is a fundamental error to assume that our elected leaders that do things you don't like or promote ideas that you find repulsive are morons. It may be that the people they convince to vote for them ARE morons, but those politicians may actually pretty intelligent.

And VERY good at manipulating other people to do their bidding.

It has nothing to do with me personally, pondering. It has to do with what is beneficial to 99% of the country (of which I am part).
I don't think they're morons because they do things I don't like - that's silly. I think Obama is quite smart and he's done a lot of things that I don't agree with.
The overwhelming majority of those that influence policy are not very smart - see the names I mentioned and there are many more on the democratic side as well. Their greed and desire to rip off the public is transparent, so even as manipulators they aren't very competent.
The Valerie Plame incident is a case in point.
The BS that lead to Iraq is yet another.
The entire Republican campaign is a glaring example.
It's not personal, just business.

NWP, I am not at all sure that the duprass is looking for any discussion that might lead to problem solving or improving our level of understanding of the issues.

The title of this thread is a good indicator - it is a hyperbolic pre-judgment extrapolated from one person's writing. I'm sure there is some gristle to chew amongst interested parties regarding the author's remarks, if only the dramatic sweeping generalizations and bigotry could be gotten around. It's tough to get the duprass to listen, however.