Come on Oklahomans

[iplaw]

There is a difference between the free flow of "ideas" and the free flow of "smear." I'm not interested in the latter.  If you don't have any facts to back up an assertion and it's simply provided to damage the person, it's not worth entertaining.  I.E. Obama isn't a citizen, Obama is a Muslim, etc.

As far as Andrew Sullivan, I did read one of his books, but that doesn't mean I implicity believe and/or agree with everything he says.  I don't see how that's difficult to understand.

Lastly, I don't think it's any of our business what's in their medical records.  Wasn't it liberals that fought for "privacy" laws like HIPPA?

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

There is a difference between the free flow of "ideas" and the free flow of "smear."

And who would make that judgment?

[buckeye]

[for the seventh post on this page, from Waterboy]
You're right to criticize that quote - I switched gears mid paragraph but very clumsily.  To often, I hear echos of "you're a racist" when Obama is criticized.  It is those kind of things I referred to, but didn't make at all clear.  As for stealing/burning/mangling signs, that's destructive but not necessarily racist - even if the candidate is a minority, contrary to Ivan Holmes' statement.

I do not identify with any of the groups you mentioned while trimming your anti-OkieRepublican brush.  Because I don't have a problem with windmills, I have no interest in exploring how you rationalize your prejudice either.

quote:Don't forget to point the spray can towards the sign.

Thanks for the advice, but it's misdirected.  If you were maybe writing to the larger audience, I doubt the skinheads read this forum anyway.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588
As for brain power, intelligence makes you use your reason to sort things out rather than blind, unthinking hatred. So, yes, it's important. And relevant.

Yes, and it's a cheap, pathetic line of reasoning and hardly "intelligent" to draw the conclusions that you have.  I could cull through the countless hours of intellectual diharrea on the Dailykos and provide you with thousands of incidents of "unthinking hatred" and "blindness" but it would be a monumental waste of time for all involved.

I see little "reasoning" from the left and even less logical discourse.  You're is the party of emotion, not mine.

Such is the life of a partisan, from either side.

But I see you didn't address the aforementioned Sullivan, who is a conservative and whose book you read.

Like I said, I don't go to DailyKos or Red State regularly. But there is intelligent stuff there that can be sifted through. It's just with Red State, you need a bigger sifter.

I'm not the type who throws the baby out with the bathwater. I like to read a lot of points of view. Isn't that part of the "free flow of ideas" that the Founders advocated?

Two things about Sullivan:

A) He's not an American citizen, so I really don't care what he thinks should and should not be required of a Presidential candidate.

B) There's very little resembling a conservative in him.  Just because he supported Bush in 2000 doesn't mean he's a conservative.  His social views and views on the WOT are nowhere close to core conservatism.  He might be a fiscally-conservative liberal, but that's about the closest he makes it.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

There is a difference between the free flow of "ideas" and the free flow of "smear."

And who would make that judgment?

Leave it to a liberal to not know the difference between a smear and a legitimate idea.

If you bothered to read my post I think I set forth decent criteria for what deciding what smear is.  Accusations without evidence are a good place to start.

I don't think smear should be outlawed, but it certainly shoudn't be legitimized.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

There is a difference between the free flow of "ideas" and the free flow of "smear."

And who would make that judgment?

Leave it to a liberal to not know the difference between a smear and a legitimate idea.

If you bothered to read my post I think I set forth decent criteria for what deciding what smear is.  Accusations without evidence are a good place to start.

I don't think smear should be outlawed, but it certainly shoudn't be legitimized.

That's a legitimate question. Who does decide?

You don't have to deride me in asking it. That's your trouble; you impulsively tend to go off on a name-calling rant. That tends to hurt one's credibility.

Back to topic: I'm no fan of the Palin's kid storyline. But it was borne out of some very peculiar facts. And a lot of the so-called "smears" were actually genuine questions about that still-strange episode. I don't think curiosity is a bad thing -- especially if the facts revealed tell a lot about a candidate.

And I'm on Sullivan's side. Unleash the medical records of the candidates who could run the country. Sure, law protects medical privacy. But when you're talking about those who hold the future of our country in their hands, a bit more transparency is prudent.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

That's a legitimate question. Who does decide?

You don't have to deride me in asking it. That's your trouble; you impulsively tend to go off on a name-calling rant. That tends to hurt one's credibility.

Back to topic: I'm no fan of the Palin's kid storyline. But it was borne out of some very peculiar facts. And a lot of the so-called "smears" were actually genuine questions about that still-strange episode. I don't think curiosity is a bad thing -- especially if the facts revealed tell a lot about a candidate.

And I'm on Sullivan's side. Unleash the medical records of the candidates who could run the country. Sure, law protects medical privacy. But when you're talking about those who hold the future of our country in their hands, a bit more transparency is prudent.

I gave you a sensible answer to the question which you summarily ignored, twice.  Why should I bother a third time?

Also, I didn't know the word "liberal" was namecalling...

The story about Palin's kid is disgusting.  The fact that you don't see it as such is sad, but not unexpected.  If it were directed against Obama's kids I'm sure your reaction would be quite different.  On a related note, people hiding behind the "genuine questions" crap are just like the 9/11 truthers who justify their lies and distortions by hiding behind the same "just asking questions" line.

As for medical records, what gives you or anyone else the right to discriminate against someone who may have a chronic disease?  Are cancer patients, survivors or people with HIV unfit to run for president or VP?

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

As for medical records, what gives you or anyone else the right to discriminate against someone who may have a chronic disease?  Are cancer patients, survivors or people with HIV unfit to run for president or VP?

Easy question.

I hold presidential candidates to a higher standard, including health. I expect my candidates to be in reasonably good shape when they take office. It's not good for the country for a president-elect to go William Henry Harrison on us. I'm sure such medical records, if released, will give a reasonable picture to decide for ourselves on his/her fitness for office. I hardly think that's unreasonable.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by buckeye

[for the seventh post on this page, from Waterboy]
You're right to criticize that quote - I switched gears mid paragraph but very clumsily.  To often, I hear echos of "you're a racist" when Obama is criticized.  It is those kind of things I referred to, but didn't make at all clear.  As for stealing/burning/mangling signs, that's destructive but not necessarily racist - even if the candidate is a minority, contrary to Ivan Holmes' statement.

I do not identify with any of the groups you mentioned while trimming your anti-OkieRepublican brush.  Because I don't have a problem with windmills, I have no interest in exploring how you rationalize your prejudice either.

quote:Don't forget to point the spray can towards the sign.

Thanks for the advice, but it's misdirected.  If you were maybe writing to the larger audience, I doubt the skinheads read this forum anyway.

I just can't agree with the defacing thing. There are laws about it for a reason. And unless you've been the target of racial vandalism like a swastika, spray painted taunts or vicious phone calls it is easy to say they're not racist. They are all in the same category.

Our lock step conservative republicans in OK have made us the laughing stock of the country. I read posts on other sites that describe us in much worse terms than I used. They simply don't understand what's happening in Utah, Idaho and Oklahoma. Even Texas is light red! I'm a native Okie so I don't hesitate to point out the truth. We are poorly educated, subject to conspiratorial thinking (thus the John Birch and KKK influence), fundamentally religious and quietly intolerant.

In most states with large rural populations, the urban areas balance that off with more sophistication and progressive attitudes. Minneapolis balances off southern Minnesota. Des Moines and Ames balance off Western Iowa. Not in Oklahoma. Tulsa is by far the most sophisticated city in the state and the most likely to rate Bushism highly. We tolerate Inhofe and Sullivan destroying otherwise decent people who want to bring us forward.

We have a brand here that won't serve us well when the Republican party reassembles itself into something to match new challenges. The republican friends I have cannot identify with whats happened in OK in the last decade.