Originally Posted by ijusluvit

What bothers me about some of the posters who disagree with you, Brooks, the President and anyone else whom they dislike, is that they seem angry and frustrated enough to literally kill the messenger. These folks aren't just in information cocoons, their comments betray real hatred. They are so emotionally charged that they can't respond reasonably or factually to anything which is outside of their political mindset.

I've thought about being manipulative and testing this theory with a post like: "Hey, Obama may have his faults, but he sure seems to be a good father to his kids". I have a hunch that there would be some very negative remarks about the President in response.

And to those of you who are fuming at this, let's take an objective measure: imagine you are a secret service agent supervising the President's visit to Sumter Landing next month. (ok, ok, that'll never happen, but just make-believe for a minute!).. you've been briefed about TOTV and read what these posters have said about the President.
Would you make sure they were weren't anywhere nearby?
I think the answer is "yes".

I dont get the ending of this post at all and would love some explanation from IJUSLUVIT !

I, one who has opposed this President way before he was the nominee, can think of NOBODY...not one person on this board who has EVER....ONCE said anything personal or threatening about this President !

Methinks you need a real attitude adjustment if you equate disagreeing with policy to anything close to what you so crudely suggest !

Looks like we've morphed away from the original topic once again. The original post suggested that David Brooks column was a worthwhile read. The principal topic of his column had nothing at all to do with endorsing or criticizing President Obama. The point Brooks was trying to make was that people live in information cuccoons these days, refusing to even consider what people who don't endorse their political beliefs think.

In his column, he uses what President Obama has said and proposed and reflects on how those to his left and right have interpreted him. He is critical of the unwillingness of the country these days to listen to the statements and plans of a political leader in an attempt to determine whether those plans are worthy of support.

At the end of his column he makes the point that "in a sensible country, (a political leader) would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed." Brooks goes on to criticize the current polarized feelings in the country, saying "...but we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality..."

The problem is that he uses President Obama as the example of how people on the left and right are unwilling to even consider ideas other than their own. All the use of Obama's name did was to set off several posters here, criticizing Brooks, the President, and each other.

If there was ever a column that demonstrates the problem of partisanship in this country right now, it was this one. That's why I recommended it and entitled the whole thread, "A Worthwhile Read". For some of you, I was wasting my time. As Brooks said, you're too involved in your own little information cuccoons to even listen, let alone think.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Looks like we've morphed away from the original topic once again. The original post suggested that David Brooks column was a worthwhile read. The principal topic of his column had nothing at all to do with endorsing or criticizing President Obama. The point Brooks was trying to make was that people live in information cuccoons these days, refusing to even consider what people who don't endorse their political beliefs think.

In his column, he uses what President Obama has said and proposed and reflects on how those to his left and right have interpreted him. He is critical of the unwillingness of the country these days to listen to the statements and plans of a political leader in an attempt to determine whether those plans are worthy of support.

At the end of his column he makes the point that "in a sensible country, (a political leader) would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed." Brooks goes on to criticize the current polarized feelings in the country, saying "...but we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality..."

The problem is that he uses President Obama as the example of how people on the left and right are unwilling to even consider ideas other than their own. All the use of Obama's name did was to set off several posters here, criticizing Brooks, the President, and each other.

If there was ever a column that demonstrates the problem of partisanship in this country right now, it was this one. That's why I recommended it and entitled the whole thread, "A Worthwhile Read". For some of you, I was wasting my time. As Brooks said, you're too involved in your own little information cuccoons to even listen, let alone think.

I am rather new to political debating but I have been to a few sights to ease my curiosity. I want to say this this is the most informed place I have been and most here give credible links and great insight to what is happening in these tumultuous times. I also think that there is an increased awareness of what is happening today and people of all walks of life are using more sources than was available in the past to make an informed opinion about the current state of affairs.

Therefore,I think that there is less sheep today then ever before. I see people who never took an active role in politics in their life, getting involved. I think the good people of today's involvements should be commended and not continually criticized and condescended by some in the media and elsewhere.
I just hope the determination and involvement will continue into November so we can vote these people out of office who do not listen to us but continue on their path to reconstruct American into some kind of country that we will not recognize until it is too late.

1) The New York Times would not hire a real Conservative.

2) Obama is not and probably will never be anthing but a far left winger.

3) Thank god for partisans. They represent what our Forefathers intended.

4) The uninformed vote for politicians who will agree to give them hand outs.

5) It is sad when someone who is a Liberal posts on this site pretending to be an independent. That Seminar ruse is childish.

Originally Posted by billethkid

That has been the theme of this administration and it's supporters since two years prior to the election...

Would you really call David Brooks a "supporter of this administration"?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Would you really call David Brooks a "supporter of this administration"?

I would not, but he is a HUGE LARGE fan of Barrack Obama and has been for years !

Originally Posted by Bucco

I would not, but he is a HUGE LARGE fan of Barrack Obama and has been for years !

Bucco is right. Also, he is known as "the liberal's favorite conservative" which is kind of an oxymoron. No real conservative takes him seriously.