Disney and Universal score waivers to offer limited health plans for part-timers

Ensign Smith said:
The problem with intelligence testing -- or any other kind of filter designed to winnow out the idiots -- is that it runs directly contrary to the concept of democracy.

True, but is that really so bad? We spend a lot of energy in this Country idealizing "democracy", "freedom" and "capitalism", but just because we extol those ideas doesn't mean they're actually useful or beneficial.

...the average American is pretty stupid...

The answer ought to be educating people out of their ignorance.

That's sort of the point. Let's say that regardless of how you score on "The Test", your vote counts for a minimum weight of 0.7. If you ace the test, your vote counts for the full weight: 1.0. If the only thing standing in the way of your vote having maximum impact was simply learning whether or not Obama is a practicing Muslim or whether W. was the mastermind behind 9/11, I can't help but think most people would strive to learn these basic truths, and you'd have a more informed (note: not necessarily more intelligent) voting public. By contrast, if you simply don't care and are just happy to vote along party lines (which happens far, far too often), your vote doesn't count as much as someone who is more likely to vote based on issues as opposed to partisanship. It motivates people to become more interested and involved in their own governance.

"The problem is made all the worse by a cynical right wing leadership that understands the true nature of people and exploits, massages and manipulates this innate ignorance at every useful turn. Vast right-wing conspiracy? You betcha, Miss Palin**. You betcha."

Yeah! You never see the left doing this!

"Like it or not, some issues (not all, but some) do have real, factual answers. Dismissing it as liberal garbage from the "intellectuals" because you think it's wrong doesn't do anybody any good."

Everyone knows all facts come from liberals/"intellectuals" (there really is no difference between the terms!). Why does the right have to be so misinformed and stoopid?!

You guys are funny. Apparently you believe your own propaganda.

And you're Hi Larry Us.

Disagreeing with a liberal worldview does not make one stupid. We see these claims with much more frequency after liberals get voted out of office. When Hopey Changey was taken seriously as proof that a man with zero executive experience was qualified to lead the free world, how many of these same folks were on here whining about the "stupid" electorate? The electorate was fooled by a guy who announced himself a moderate against his every vote/action/quote.

Once he got into office he championed every liberal/progressive cause with vigor while ignoring the collapsing economy around him. We have our huge federal health plan. We have the Federal Government suing Arizona over immigration. We have government control of GM. He pushed cap and trade as far as he could, etc. Say what you want about what he has done, but these certainly are not "moderate" positions. Was the electorate "stupid" to fall for that?

Only now that the "majority" has spoken in November does his tune change. Obama and his liberal allies in Congress are running to the center (see tax bill). Does anyone believe this is sincere? Or is Obama and the dems trying to fool the "stupid" electorate again?

Stupidity rears its head on the left and the right.

djDaemon said:
We spend a lot of energy in this Country idealizing "democracy", "freedom" and "capitalism", but just because we extol those ideas doesn't mean they're actually useful or beneficial.

Scary stuff right there.

I wasn't suggesting those ideals aren't useful or beneficial or important or whatever. I'm just pointing out that the act of extolling them doesn't necessarily mean they're worthy of that praise. That's not remotely the same as saying "freedom sucks" or however you misinterpreted it.

Aamilj said:
Once he got into office he championed every liberal/progressive cause with vigor while ignoring the collapsing economy around him.

Wow, really? That sure strikes me as selective observation. I seem to recall him working on economic issues before he even got the keys to the White House. You do remember he was a senator, right? It's not like he wasn't already a part of the process.

And there's great irony that someone with "small government" ideals also champions the idea of its chief executive fixing the economy.

Obama really championed every liberal/progressive cause you could think of? Wow, that's absolutely beyond my comprehension....

Myself, I'm wondering if you're confusing him with Anthony Weiner....now THERE is a progressive liberal who fights for the causes I believe in...

I should have said worked on the economy in any way that the "majority" of Americans agreed with. My bad... I think we know most thought those bailouts were unecessary spending. At least most polls indicate this is true. McCain's vote certainly killed his campaign...not that he needed help to do that.

Of course I know Obama was a junior senator for 304 days before he set up an exploratory comittee to run for president. I can't really address the "small government" jab. I really don't understand the connection. It seems to be an insult unrelated to anything we have been discussing the last few days...?

gator:

You seem proudly to the left of Obama. That is your right and I respect that. But any honest assessment of the "majority" of Americans on most issues show Obama out of the mainstream. You are even farther if you sincereley think this man is too far right...?

The point is not to belittle you or anybody's opinions for which I disagree. The point is back to Gonch's quote...

So democracy doesn't favor the majority? It favors those who've decided they know better than the majority?

On a thread where we have been debating vote tests to allow people to participate in our democracy. It seems like we have a bunch of people that think they know better than the majority. And now we have a poster who is implying that democracy, freedom, and capitalism may not be "useful or beneficial."

I know you have sort of stayed out of the mud. But you have not exactly denounced the extremism discussed in this thread. You have to understand that from where I sit, to the left of Obama is over the horizon... :) Is it possible to be more extreme with the written word than that quote buck caught above?

Again...he has the right to believe and say this stuff. But thanfully his views are a minority that don't rule the day.

You keep bringing up ONE person's comment in favor of a vote test, in an argument against people that denounced that as a terrible idea. I guess I should expect that as you MO by this point, only responding to certain extremities, but is still scares me that you don't see anything wrong with that.

Why not use comments from the majority here, and not some idea that one person had, that the rest of us disagreed with?

Tek:

I was responding to Jeff and Gator. The two guys who had response posts for me. To my knowledge neither "denounced that as a terrible idea." One is insinuating that he is to the left of Obama, so we can't be sure what his stance may be on that issue. If I missed it, I appologize. But neither were in on our lengthy conversation yesterday. I was not sure they could understand the context of my counterargument without including the pertinent discussion that lead up to my deliberations they felt need to respond to.. To your credit, you and Ensign did denounce it along with the typical group who hold more conservative views. I'm not certain we could call it a vigorated denouncement. :) But it was a denouncement none-the-less.

When it comes to political conversation, I consider that great progress. Often times we all get so wrapped up in "protecting" our own ideology, that we lose focus when someone strays too far. There comes a point where even liberals and conservatives can indeed agree.

Wow. You're the king of back handed 'compliments'. I said it was an aweful idea. To their 'credit' neither Jeff nor Bill agreed it on here. Sorry i didn't stone DJ for the mere thought. Would that have been vehement enough for you?

And I'm quite sure they have the capacity to understand your argument.

I was just thinking Remora would be a cool name for a coaster.

That's funny, I was just thinking that douchebag would be a better screen name four you than aamilj :).

I didn't believe you capable of a thoughtful descriptor...but kudos on playing to your audience. ;)

Ensign Smith said:

The answer ought to be educating people out of their ignorance. Except nobody wants to be re-educated -- and doesn't that word have a frightfully chilling air to it? -- since they don't know that they're ignorant.

It's amazing to this day how many people think that Obama wasn't born an American, or that he's secretly a Muslim. Reference the previously mentioned death panels. People don't believe the planet is warming disastrously, and that the human species is the main culprit for this transformation. Conversely, many of them are convinced that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that angels personally watch over their every move.

People believe this sh*t because they're ignorant, and they're easily swayed into believing things they want to believe, and disbelieving things they don't.

The problem is made all the worse by a cynical right wing leadership that understands the true nature of people and exploits, massages and manipulates this innate ignorance at every useful turn. Vast right-wing conspiracy? You betcha, Miss Palin**. You betcha.

On the other side of the stupid coin, we have people who to this day swear that George Bush, if he didn't create hurricane Katrina, directed it to go to New Orleans. If certain candidates are elected, tens of millions of women will be ducking into back alleys with coat hangers to abort pregnancies each year. One of my educated relatives (at least on paper she is) recently told me with a straight face that the Gulf oil spill was done deliberately on direct orders from Dick Cheney.

My personal favorite though has to be that Democrats care about the working man. Maybe some idealized character from a Steinbeck novel, but not the living, breathing, in the flesh version that goes to church and goes hunting.

You make a couple very good points, RGB. The right wing certainly doesn't have a monopoly on irrationality. I found highly amusing, for example, Michael Moore's charges that Bush was somehow in cahoots with the Saudis to whisk the Bin Laden family out of the U.S in the aftermath of 9/11.

Not trying to get bogged down in your individual observations, but I do want to mention in passing that most moderate-to-liberals I know only blame Bush for his handling (or lack thereof) Katrina, and his less than wise appointment of the infamous 'Brownie' (who heretofore hadn't run an organization larger or more pressing than a showhorse society) as leader of an agency as critical as FEMA.

On the other hand, there is certainly more than one kind of 'working man'. Some of them hunt, some of them go to church, and a few even go hunting in church. ;) But most 'working men' live in the city or the burbs and don't have the time or means to get out to the country and shoot Bambis.

Conversely, if Democrats don't care about the 'working man' (great, now I've got RUSH going through my head -- thanks a lot), do Republicans really give a rat's ass about 'patriots'? From the way they've historically tried to deny veterans decent healthcare, I would guess not. As recently as the last couple of days, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to helping 9/11 responders shoulder the debilitating effects of breathing in a toxic stew of an atmosphere for months after the attacks -- and danged if I can think of anyone more patriotic than those folks.

Aamilj said:
I can't really address the "small government" jab. I really don't understand the connection.

That's kind of the point about the irony, isn't it?

But any honest assessment of the "majority" of Americans on most issues show Obama out of the mainstream.

You're right, because the mainstream has become divisive and polarized, while Obama has become remarkably centrist. In which case I criticize both the mainstream as well as Obama. The fact that he can simultaneously have a negative approval rating and no poll indicates there's a Republican that can beat him illustrates how screwed up our culture really is.

Aamilj said:
I should have said worked on the economy in any way that the "majority" of Americans agreed with. My bad... I think we know most thought those bailouts were unecessary spending. At least most polls indicate this is true.

The majority may think that way, but those darn smart people are using their silly facts again to prove them wrong. Unless of course the majority believes another 8 million unemployed people caused by the auto and banking industries imploding would have been good for our economy.

CP Chris said:
The majority may think that way, but those darn smart people are using their silly facts again to prove them wrong.

Huh?

From the article:

"Told about the findings, another leading economist was unconvinced.

“I’m very surprised that they find these big impacts,” said John B. Taylor, a Stanford professor and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. “It doesn’t correspond at all to my empirical work.”

The disagreement underscored the extent to which econometric estimates are heavily reliant on underlying assumptions and models, but Mr. Blinder and Mr. Zandi said they hoped their analysis would withstand scrutiny by other scholars."

Two against one. I guess you do believe in majority rules after all. ;)

Unless of course the majority believes another 8 million unemployed people caused by the auto and banking industries imploding would have been good for our economy.

Short term? Probably not.

Long term? Eh. We'll see, I guess.