Vice President Cheney: "So?"

I don't know...I think Pee Wee was talking about Ken. :laugh:

As a republic, the government works for us, so yes, our opinion should count for something. Yes, we get our say at the poles, but this administration has taken its lame duck latitude to the heights of arrogance and evil. It cares not what the people want, refuses to adjust course when things don't work, spies on American civilians without warrants, recruits telcos to help in their illegal spying and retroactively try to get them immunity. This bunch makes Richard Nixon look like a choir boy.

 

Okay.

Actually we get our main say at the polls, but if you like to say something at the poles, have at it.

I think you are missing quite a bit of the truth here. This administration has been largely pathetic, but they have adjusted course when things aren't working such as they did in Iraq (though it was much later than it should have been). The charge of spying on American civilians without warrants is baseless. And the telcos should be given immunity. I can't see that they did anything wrong to begin with (at least I have seen no good argument for it), but what good comes from not giving them immunity? That is just playing politics, plain and simple, IMO.

But here's the bigger point: The American electorate is largely stupid (something well verified by the tripe that gets posted on this board). Even with a very educated and intelligent electorate, the issues are so complex that there is no reasonable expectation that a majority of the American public has an informed and well-reasoned opinion on much, particularly in this day and age of soundbites.

Here's a good rule of thumb: If the American public is agin it, it is probably a good thing to do. And if they are for it, we better take a second or third look at it.

 

You wouldn't know it if the NSA had been in your house while you were out. However, it is not baseless. There is a case right here in Denver where the Feds under auspices of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, demanded the owner of The Tattered Cover Book Store turn over records of books purchased by someone they were suspicious about. The owner refused, and won in court. By the way, the suspected person never knew it was him, as best I recollect.

 

How do you know? And under FISA, you wouldn't know anyway. It has been that way for years.

So doesn't this prove that your point was wrong?

 

Personally, I appreciate the candor that is certainly not politically correct nor opinon poll-driven. I don't have to agree with it to appreciate it - much the way I liked Teresa Heinz-Kerry telling reporters to "shove it" in 2004. I don't condone it, but you have to admit it was a bit fun to watch :smilewinkgrin:

 

FISA requires a warrant be issued.

Nope. It does the opposite..proving that the Feds are in fact, spying on Americans without their knowledge. If not for this courageous book store owner, they would have had records of this persons personal book purchases.

 

With Heinz, pounding on the bottom of the bottle, or squeezing it works better than shoving it!\:thumbs:

 

"Baptist Board nut house", or no, the phrase "these United States" is correct and accurate, just as is the phrase "the United States".

Ed

 

That statement shows a total misunderstanding of the American electorate, the U.S. Constitution, and governmental fundamentals.

There are always pockets or groups of people who are below the average line in understanding, however, it is a minority in the case of these United States.

For example, those who advocate war in Iraq and a future war with Iran who never lifted a finger for this country and have no idea of the sacrifice involved have no clue on the subject. They base their opinions on the latest breaking news from FOX or CNN. However, this is a minority.

From the quote above, a represenative sample of the stupid American electorate could be implied to consist of a local Baptist congregation in Michigan the day they voted to call a certain pastor.

The point is, your statement is quite flawed. Maybe you should stick to theology.

 

After the fact, and does not require notification of the warrant to the individual being investigated, so far as I know. You might have a warrant (wire-tap, bank record, etc) and not know about it.

I am not sure how courageous it was. I am not sure that purchases made in public places have any reasonable expectation of privacy. But the police and the feds spy on people all the time without their knowledge. Remember, even having a warrant does not mean that the person being investigated knows that they are being investigated.

 

That is pretty much what I said about the Bush supporters in 2006. Sure am sorry I was right on that one ... just one disaster after another and Cheney is a big part of those disasters.:tonofbricks:

 

Not at all. If you think that the electorate of this country is well informed on political matters, you are part of the problem. There is very little of this electorate that can give anything more than a soundbite on any major issue of this campaign, much less the minor ones. As you mention, what people know, they get from Fox or CNN or MSNBC. That qualifies one to be uninformed.

And that has nothing to do with the constittution or government fundamentals. I am not sure why you bring that up. Nothing I said even referenced that. I merely pointed out that the American electorate is, by and large, stupid in political matters.

We don't agree on much, which is fine, but we should at least be able to agree that the electorate in this country is not well taught and does not think critically about the various issues.

By definition, about half are below average. There are a few really bright people who raise the average, and there are a few really dumb people who lower it. But generally speaking, the average is the middle. For instance, most people, even here, can't tell you the difference between a shi'a and a Sunni. And yet that is a key fact to have an informed understanding of the War in Iraq. Most people don't understand monetary policy and tax consequences. And I could go on and on.

This is also true of those who oppose war in Iraq and Iran and they are, by far, the majority. You are smoking some good stuff if you think the majority of people have "lifted a finger for this country" in terms of military service (which is your usual tact).

But at a more fundamental level, the idea that only people with a certain background are allowed to have a view of something is distintively unAmerican, IMO. It may be an uninformed view (as most are, IMO).

But also notice how you agree with me. YOu talk of those who advocate war as having no clue on the subject. Not too many years ago, those who advocated and supported war were a very large majority of the people. So by your own statement, at one time in the recent past, the vast majority of the electorate had no clue; they were uninformed.

So your argument simply won't work. I would argue that when the majority supported the war, they were uninformed. And when the majority opposes the war, they too are uninformed. That's why we elect people to make decisions and get knowledge at high levels.

To say that the view of the electorate has equal weight with the joint chiefs of staff is crazy. Because the American electorate is vastly uninformed about military matters compared to the joint chiefs.

What does that mean? It seems like you are sneakily suggested my congregation was stupid the day they called me to be the pastor. I would hope you wouldn't stoop that low, not to mention the fact that it is a completely different comparison. Voting on political matters, based on soundbite campaigning about complex issues, is entirely different than calling a pastor where substantive and lengthy interviews, Q&A sessions, personal visits, and extended preaching engagements have been carried out. There is simply no comparison. Furthermore, there is no promise of the Holy Spirit to the general electorate where there is such a promise with the church. So, to put it bluntly, your illustration is indicative of the very thing I was pointing out to begin with: People are uninformed and don't think well.

Perhaps you would be willing to demonstrate how.

I will. But that doesn't prevent me from other things as well.

 

Not sure if you are aware of it or not, but in 2006, Bush wasn't running for anything.

 

LOL, you are right ... but still holds for most of the conservative Republicians. They have aided the disasters.

 

I think it holds true for most of the American electorate. As I originally stated, the electorate is, by and large, pretty stupid and unthinking. There are pockets of people who are well-informed, but they are very small (and do not seem to be presented here).

The electorate is like sheep who will follow after a smooth-sounding talker without thinking about his positions. When these elections should be about ideas, they are about personalities and speech making ability. They are not about good ideas. When you listen to Obama, everyone is hung up on "Change you can believe in." I happen to agree that it is change we can beleive in. But it is the wrong kind of change, when you listen to what he actually says. McCain doesn't offer much of an alternative, but given the two, McCain will do less damage than Obama, particularly in the long run.

As I have often said, whoever is president won't really matter except for court nominations. And Obama will be a disaster for that. With McCain there is a chance for better nominations.

No matter who is president, the economy will recover because economies do that. It doesn't care who the president is. The possible downside will be raising taxes which will hurt the economy

 

Actually, I am quite well informed on such matters that you constantly post about in the political and governmental threads. If I wasn't, I would be fired.

As far as your theology goes, my guess is that I could go head to head with you in any debate you care to discuss.

As far as you name calling about my illustration, it shows the point went right over your head. If you had bothered to take it in a way that makes a point, and not a personal attack, you would have seen that it disproves your premise that a given group of people in this county are stupid, to use the word you chose.

You should get the chip off your shoulder.

 

Correcto moondoe

 

Okay. So?

And BTW, I don't constantly post here. I hadn't posted here for three months prior to last week. And I rarely post here now on various topics. I have been posting in only two or three threads, if I recall correctly.

Do you think most of the American electorate is as informed as you are?

Perhaps. So? But I am not sure what relevance that is, unless it helps to boost your ego or something. I certainly don't care one way or the other.

With no level of your knowledge, reading, background, and education I have no way to evaluate that statement. If you would like, we could explore it a bit to see if this is accurate or not.

First, where did I name call? I am not sure what you are referring to.

Second, I am not sure what your point was due to the fact that you didn't explain it, which is why I asked.

Third, I didn't say "a given group of people in this country are stupid." I said "The American electorate is largely stupid ." I later said, "the electorate in this country is not well taught and does not think critically about the various issues." I also said, "the electorate is, by and large, pretty stupid and unthinking."

So, by reading what I said, you can tell that my comments were about the American electorate, not about a "given group" within that electorate.

BTW, I also said, "There are pockets of people who are well-informed" and you are claiming to be in that group. I don't know since the short posts on this board are not conducive to making those kinds of determinations.

So here's the test: Go out to the "man on the street" and ask as many as you like to answer in-depth questions about monetary and tax policy. I imagine that you will find most of them are pretty uninformed, and if you do, my point will have been proven correct.

Lastly, as I demonstrated, your analogy failed because it is an illegitimate comparison. A small church calling a pastor whom they have heard preach for six months, whom they have had dinner with and visitation in their homes, whom they have had multiple opportunities to ask any and all questions they desire is totally different than electing a candidate for president based on the little soundbites that we get from them filtered through news reporters.

It would be impossible since I don't have one. Seriously, I don't. I enjoy the conversation (sometimes), but there is no chip on my shoulder in the least.

 

Since my preaching and teaching is based on the Bible, I have not yet found a passage from which to make that point. If I did, I would say so. And I think most would agree.

To be well-informed on political issues would require hours upon hours of reading in political science, constitutional law and history, current events, etc. Most people, including the ones here, have lives that prevent that and as a result keep us ill-informed.

We are, generally speaking, politically ignorant, and this board is a microcosm that demonstrates that from all sides.