# Why the barrage?



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2005)

When I drive to and from work--long commute, don't ask--I often get stuck with AM radio. And on AM radio (unless I can get Jim Rome) there's an endless barrage of what I'd have to call right wing and fundamentalist Christian jazz to listen to.

Apparently, our country's going straight to hell. Apparently, every murderer gers off. Apparently, the liberal-left-lesbian conspiracy will--sometime next week--take every gun, force everybody to have abortions wheteher they're preggnant or not, and burn every Bible. Apparently, young people are so destroyed by radical professors like me that they all hate their country. Apparently, America is saturated with traitors. Well, them and illegal immigrants.

OK, fine. So here's my question: what are these people so scared of, assuming they're really on the warpath and not just trying to get and keep listeners? Why the constant barrage of madness, the constant attacks on everybody with the slightest divergent ideas? Why the endless fussbudgeting around with other people's bedroom habits? Why the constant demands for more patriotism, more more more, with the likes of Michael Savage setting the rules for what patriotism is and how to display it?

I don't get it. By the world's standards, we're all pretty much rich and privileged. We mostly aren't in danger all the time, for one thing. And by and large, people behave pretty well.

So what's the Big Fear? Why the endless demands for political correctness, why the endless insistence on public worship, the constant personal attacks on other Americans who simply disagree? 

Or, to put this another way, why do people think that we all need to be reminded daily of what most of us already know about this country?

Looks like demands for endless loyalty oaths to me, and I say, "Give EVERYBODY eat!" But there must be other explanations; what are they?


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 22, 2005)

Well there is always opposite sides of the political observations. However, I doubt that the US "Founding Fathers" had much of this in mind. Many of those upheld morals in high regards.


----------



## Cruentus (May 22, 2005)

Because....

1. Fear makes people not question authority; mainly corporate facism.

2. Fear causes people to buy more crap they don't need.

3. Fear makes people not question the current state that they are in (wage slavery, overworked, increasingly bad health care and pensions, etc.), because they can then blame the problem on whatever is making them afraid (liberals, other races, terrorists, or whatever)

Radio personalities, like TV personalities, get blitzed with ideologies and talking points (whether 'liberal' or 'conservative') through P.R. people hired by the very companies that want numbers 1, 2, and 3 to happened.

Manufactured consent at it's worst....only it has only been getting worse. And, that is why all the fear mongering.

Well, that's what I think, anyways.

Paul


----------



## Sapper6 (May 22, 2005)

actually, it's because nobody cares to listen to the left-wing liberal crap.  and the majority rules.  who the hell wants to drive down the highway and listen to gay rights and abortion babble?  besides, if there still people who like to waste their time listening and pondering these topics, they could always check out the study here at martialtalk.com, it's full of it...and speaking of "full of it..."  

oh never mind


----------



## Cruentus (May 22, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> actually, it's because nobody cares to listen to the left-wing liberal crap.  and the majority rules.  who the hell wants to drive down the highway and listen to gay rights and abortion babble?  besides, if there still people who like to waste their time listening and pondering these topics, they could always check out the study here at martialtalk.com, it's full of it...and speaking of "full of it..."
> 
> oh never mind



I don't think the "majority" wants to listen to people like Mike Savage either...but that's cool if you want to believe what you just said...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2005)

I tend to agree--well, with the manufactured consent part, and the fear part. What I don't get is what it is that folks are so afraid of--well, actually, I kind of suspect that they're (quite rightly) afraid of cultural and economic change, and need some other scapegoat, since to attack cultural and economic change would contradict some deeply-held beliefs.

Nor do I understand where people are getting all the, "left wing and liberal," exposure," unless of course they read the "Times," daily and listen to Pacifica News on a regular basis.


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 22, 2005)

I think you are both right, no one wants to be told how to live their lives, having a right wing Christian spouting crap on the AM radio on how you should live your life, is just like having an aging hippie liberal on the radio talking about how groovie he is and how "da man" continues to keep him down, who cares no one wants to listen to that garbage anyway, why do you think its on AM radio.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2005)

Since on AM radio there's Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, Laura what's-'er-name and 1400 preachers, on FM there's Keykis, Prager and (out here in CA) a whole station, 97.1 devoted to conservatives, and the only mildly left station I've ever heard is one from San Francisco, could you explain where all these libs and lefties are, and why there's such a big problem?


----------



## Sapper6 (May 23, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I don't think the "majority" wants to listen to people like Mike Savage either...but that's cool if you want to believe what you just said...



like it or not, its the truth.  i certainly don't agree with everything that airs.  give it some time and i think we'll see this change pretty soon.  but right now, it's just not marketable.

the left still has that air america thing still, right?


----------



## michaeledward (May 23, 2005)

This is from a movie ... and it was quoted in the local papers' editorial this week. I think it may have some relevance to the discussion.

_Toward the end of the 1995 film The American President, the fictional President Andrew Shepherd portrayed by Michael Douglas makes the following statement at a press conference in this climactic scene:

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious men to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, (political opponent) Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it and telling you whos to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.
_​


----------



## Makalakumu (May 23, 2005)

I think the answer is that american conservatism is becoming radical corporatism.  This media barrage is bought and paid for by people who want to change what American means in our hearts and minds.  

See this...I've quoted it before, but its relevant here, too...



> *The 14 Defining*
> Characteristics Of Fascism
> by Dr. Lawrence Britt
> 
> ...


I don't think we are here yet, but we on this road...


----------



## ginshun (May 23, 2005)

Isn't getting rid of these guys pretty much as simple as not listening to them?  Honestly, if you don't listen to their radio shows you'd never even be exposed to them.

 I'd be willing to bet that if I aksed everyone in my office right now who Michael Savage was, over half of them would have no clue.

 Its not like anybody is holding you down and forcing you to listen to them.  Most cars have tape decks or CD players nowadays.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

...and the question I asked was....?

It's a serious question: given the anger and tetchiness exhibited by people like Ann Coulter, the constant right-wing screaming, the fundamentalist shouting about everybody going to hell, the accusations of unpatriotism that fly everywhere, well, what're the causes? What are folks so flipped out about?


----------



## michaeledward (May 23, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Isn't getting rid of these guys pretty much as simple as not listening to them? Honestly, if you don't listen to their radio shows you'd never even be exposed to them.
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that if I aksed everyone in my office right now who Michael Savage was, over half of them would have no clue.
> 
> Its not like anybody is holding you down and forcing you to listen to them. Most cars have tape decks or CD players nowadays.


Individually, that may be true. But we need to be aware of the underlying 'tone' of culture. While, perhaps, most Americans do not listen to, or agree with Rush Limbaugh, the attitudes he espouses have reached a level of acceptance in the country. Combine the LImbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Savage with Focus on Families, the 700 Club and other evangelical (political) organizations ... and the volume of that 'tone' begins to build. Soon the 'tone' replaces thought; it is woven into the society without rationality.

An example ... Illegal immigration is, well, illegal. However, it is poorly enforced by federal authorites (for a number of reasons). The tone about this has reached a point where in a small town in New Hampshire, a police cheif recently arrested an illegal immigrant and charged him with 'tresspassing'; if a person is in the country illegally, they can not have the legal right to be in this town. This incident (and a related similiar incident) are getting quite a bit of positive spin in the conservative airwaves. 

While technically all in this story is within the boundaries ... police officers pass me on the highway when I am speeding ... selective enforcement. Here, the officials are selectively enforcing an action outside their jurisdiction. I have to think, is there nothing better this officer could be doing? 

The Big Lie - repeat something often enough, and it starts to be believed.


----------



## MisterMike (May 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...and the question I asked was....?
> 
> It's a serious question: given the anger and tetchiness exhibited by people like Ann Coulter, the constant right-wing screaming, the fundamentalist shouting about everybody going to hell, the accusations of unpatriotism that fly everywhere, well, what're the causes? What are folks so flipped out about?



I think most of the bullet items these shows discuss are:

Abortion
Gay Marriage
Socialized Health Care
High Taxes
Gun Rights
Public Schools
Death Penalty

to name a few.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

But here's my problem: to take up just two of the issues you mentioned, Americans DON'T pay particularly high taxes, and we DON'T have socialized medicine. So why the insistence that we do?

Moreover, I was really asking about the constant barrage of insults, screaming invective, accusations of traitoriousness, etc., that now occupies so much of, "discussion," on the media--and on Internet forums. 

I think part of it's due to psychobabble--starting about ten years ago, people starting feeling more comfortable throwing accusations that anybody who came over to ask them to turn the stereo down after 1 AM must be neurotic. And on this forum, it's pretty clear that much the same thing happens all the time.

So why is that?


----------



## Bammx2 (May 23, 2005)

I would like to ask a question,just for information purposes only....

Who is this Michael Savage I have been hearing so much about?
 Of course,being here in the UK...I have no idea who he is?
But he seems to have stirred the pot a bit!
Does he have site I can look into?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

He's about our latest rabid loon on talk radio--just Google his name, the website's easy to find. 

Of course, we have a lot of rabid loons lately--apparently the whole's country's got one foot in Hell and the other on a greased flounder, now more than ever.

My question is why everybody's so worried, and so willing to launch personal attacks...

P.S. Our drivers are going crazier too.


----------



## Bammx2 (May 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> He's about our latest rabid loon on talk radio--just Google his name, the website's easy to find.
> 
> Of course, we have a lot of rabid loons lately--apparently the whole's country's got one foot in Hell and the other on a greased flounder, now more than ever.
> 
> ...


Greased flounder......
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I shall give this "gentleman" a look-see.

Thanks for that!

Greased flounder........


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

Yeah, I like that one--stole it from a Paul Zindel novel.

So the view from abroad--have we just gone nationally nuts?


----------



## MisterMike (May 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But here's my problem: to take up just two of the issues you mentioned, Americans DON'T pay particularly high taxes, and we DON'T have socialized medicine. So why the insistence that we do?
> 
> Moreover, I was really asking about the constant barrage of insults, screaming invective, accusations of traitoriousness, etc., that now occupies so much of, "discussion," on the media--and on Internet forums.
> 
> ...



Well, the taxes are high enough for the tastes of most middle class workers I know. The reason this and other issues are brought up on talk radio are not because of the ways things are now, but where it looks like they are heading. I also tend to stay away from comparing our rates to those of other countries because that, and things like foreign court decisions, should have no bearing on what tax rates and laws we make here.

Medicare is the first step towards socialized health care. I pay into it all the time, what benefit does it give me? I believe it goes to someone else. (Social program) I've got my own private insurance - and I never go to the doctor. If I were living alone, I wouldn't get it until I reached 40+.

Most people can live with the state of things now (Current tax rates, gun laws, college entrance requirements based on skin color, etc.) but I'm sure there are a few holdouts who want it all wiped out. You're probably right that the big item these people are selling is based on Change, which can instill fear, Change that would include more socialist programs, higher taxes etc. which is what is going to sell the radio show.

I do not think their topics are completely unwarrented. There are those politicians that would see to it we paid in 70%+ into the government from our paychecks.

There are hundreds of topics the left and right fight over. I say it ALL boils down to money, freedom and power (money). They argue over who has the best plans for our money. I tend to side with the guys who will leave it in my pocket instead of putting it in someone elses.

That said, I think I can express it politely as I hope I did in the paragraph above, and someone else can say, "OK, that's his way and agree or not I can still associate with him." Generally it is met with name calling, presonal attacks and violence. What I think you're point is, is that these guys are on the radio with the same right wing viewpoint but use words like Commie, Socialist, Liberal, UnAmerican, etc. to demonize those who disagree. I agree, they do not make a good image for those who follow a capitalist philosophy, but neither do screamers like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean help their own cause.

So, while these guys may be all over the airwaves, are people really listening? By the sounds of it there'd be riots in the streets, pie throwing, destruction of property, wild protests - oh wait, this is happening all the time, but not by these guys' listening audience.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 23, 2005)

Well, on my radio here in Albuquerque you can listen to Rush or Savage or Hannity, or you can listen to "Air America" and listen to Randi Rhodes or Ed Shultz or Al Franken.

  The funny part is, they all sound about the same...Rhodes is just about as petty and mean-spirited and superficial as Savage.

 It's funny to listen to Hannity and Rush talk about the liberal bias in the media, and hear Rhodes and co. complain about the conservative bias in the media.

 After a week of listening to one and then the other, you really start wondering if they are actually talking about the same country. One side's saints is the other side's villians...

 I don't think most people who really live in the US, conservative or liberal or something in between, really have much in common with the people on the radio. They should all come with those warnings like you see on the Astrology page in the newspaper; "For Entertainment Purposes Only"


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

If ya dont like them, dont listen. I always find it funny when people object to what Rush,Savage et al said on their shows. The fact that they were even listening means one more person for their ratings. Hmmm..maybe thats why they are so popular, the more outrageous they are means more hate calls they get which only shows how many people are listening.....


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 23, 2005)

Listening to Rush and Rhodes for political information is like listening to Howard Stern for sex information.  Just because they are popular doesn't mean that's what people really are like


----------



## psi_radar (May 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yeah, I like that one--stole it from a Paul Zindel novel.
> 
> So the view from abroad--have we just gone nationally nuts?




It's really about selling advertising. If it bleeds, it leads. I'm not sure exactly what you'd call the phenomenon, but it has something to do with loss of  control and fear of "the other," which you're familiar with, as an English professor.  

The conservatives are very good at selling fear. Fear of people ruining your way of life, fear you'll die poor, fear that your kids won't get an inheritance, fear that someone will come take your guns away, fear that there's a sinister, invisible force infiltrating us that plans to subvert your religion; take your job; or defile your kids. It can be very compelling.

Unfortunately, Air America and the left react in kind, usually issuing chicken-little type prognostications based upon the actions of the right. Probably because this is a human nature phenomenon, and the tactics aren't really based in politics. 

Maybe we are all nuts--paranoid, to be specific.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If ya dont like them, dont listen. I always find it funny when people object to what Rush,Savage et al said on their shows. The fact that they were even listening means one more person for their ratings. Hmmm..maybe thats why they are so popular, the more outrageous they are means more hate calls they get which only shows how many people are listening.....


Yeah, i was thinking on the same lines. The same goes for TV.


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

If millions of people like Robert were to call the show, its a show with millions of listeners right?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 23, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> like it or not, its the truth.




No.  It isn't.

You made this in reference to Michael Savage, whose last name is fitting.  The crap that spews out of his mouth and out of that of Ann Coulter not isn't true, it isn't even remotely defensable.  

Now...issue forth with some of their "truth," and we will then take it on.  I suspect you will then lose and then dismiss all this--and all of us liberals-- here in the study as being "full of it," as you did above.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

Look at the post directly above this one: that's what I'm talking about. Why the pointless rudeness? (Yes, I know...I'm always doing this myself, just like All The Rest of My Ilk, even though I'm not, and I don't even have an elk.) Or look at the post saying, "Well....we're being taxed enough," when in fact we pay less in taxes than citiens of any other industrialized country.

What's the fear about? Why the absolute refusal to look at reality? Why so many accusations of disloyalty, of immorality, etc? Where's it coming from?

It's a real question: what's the enormous emergency, or emergencies, that suddenly blew up? 

I have my own answer: I think people are scared to death of the changes that advanaced capitalism has meant, and they can't say that because officially they believe that Capitalism Is The Only God, so they have to find scapegoats...

So what are the other answers?


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

If only EVERYBODY (and I do mean everybody) "did" more than they "debated"/talked...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

Sorry, but some of us do plenty.

I was wondering about explanations, in this case. Thanks.


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Good for you...what was Savage talking about today? You use him for an example so much I can only assume you actually listen to his show.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

See--this is the kind of thing I mean. The question I'm asking, since you brought him up, is this: why does a guy like Savage become successful? And why, if nobody ever listens to him, do his exact ideas, words, and methods appear so often on this Forum?


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

How do you know what his words, methods and ideas are if you dont listen to his show? Do you listen to his show?


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Well, i dont listen ...but I see info on many forums. Makes me NOT want to listen.


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Are people parroting Savage or is he just saying what people want to hear? Media bends to what people want to watch/listen to.....life imitates art? Art imitates life??


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Thats why you wont see me defending any of them. I dont listen/know enough about them to be able to comment.


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Are people parroting Savage or is he just saying what people want to hear? Media bends to what people want to watch/listen to.....life imitates art? Art imitates life??


Life imitates Art-
Art imitates Life-
Media irritates both-


----------



## Cruentus (May 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> See--this is the kind of thing I mean. The question I'm asking, since you brought him up, is this: why does a guy like Savage become successful? And why, if nobody ever listens to him, do his exact ideas, words, and methods appear so often on this Forum?



The short answer, if this is what you are looking for, is that the arguements that Savage, Hannity, and the likes are espousing are part of an entire ideology that is being mass marketed to overworked and vapidly unaware masses. And I do not intend to just blame neo-conservatives here, because many elected democrates and supporters do the same sorts of things, just not in an as organized or well funded way. The end results despite the party influence seem to be the same: people focus on the micro details (special interests) and ignore the macro (read LARGE AND GLARING) problems; and the end result of this is the same - large wealthy entities become wealthier while squeezing more out of the majority of working people.

And as to mass marketing tactics, basically if you say something enough times, it doesn't matter whether it is true or logical. Overworked and afraid people will unknowlingly buy into it.


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

In the end, the people get "sold" what they are willing to buy. I wouldnt buy the "russian roullette" board game no matter who hawked it. How often I saw it sold on TV or how overworked I was...While media can influence, people are having something reinforced that they have believed somewhat true for a while. Thats the real problem. If you want to change their minds, IMO the way to do it is show them there is a better way, and take the high road while doing it. Not insult, degrade or call them idiots.....


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> And as to mass marketing tactics, basically if you say something enough times, it doesn't matter whether it is true or logical. Overworked and afraid people will unknowlingly buy into it.


Does this apply to 10th Dans and epithetical titles?


----------



## Bammx2 (May 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yeah, I like that one--stole it from a Paul Zindel novel.
> 
> So the view from abroad--have we just gone nationally nuts?


uuummmm.....
yea.

They pretty much think the US are insane, power mad,war monging,paranoid schizoids.
The war in iraq has been "unofficially" dubbed the 21st century crusade.
Even passing up the war for oil "theory".
Depending on the area of the country....
I do NOT go anywhere near due to the fact I am just an american.
And now that Malcom Glazer has bought Manchester United, the fans have lost thier frikken minds just because an AMERICAN owns thier team.
Of course,they all know Bush is the anti-christ.
Blair won the election last month,but says he will resign next year.
The Brits are getting somewhat annoyed at the treatment some of thier own  at the hands of US immigration.
Example: One of the talk shows this very morning had a Brit who kicked out of the US on visa fraud just because he stayed over 5 days to be there when his son was born.
And now he has been denied re-entry back into the US.
5 days? c'mon...it was his son for chrst sake.
A British journalist went to the US fo a vaction not too long ago with his his family and because of a computer glich on the US side,he was shuttled out straight away and denied re-entry back into the US permanently.
Reason: they said they had him on record as never leaving the US for the 5 years previous.But he had his passport right in front of them with all the other countries he had been in for those 5 years and the US was not among them.
His job is to travel the world and right about it.
Those are just a couple of examples that aren't helping our image in the slightest bit.
In general...people still like the US,but I have noticed a definate change in the atmosphere in the last 2 years.
Now when I meet new people,the first question I get is "do you like Bush"?
It used to be "How do you like it here"?
Don't get me wrong,I am not anti-american,but I do see where they get the "paranoid" part from in some cases.
And to be honest...the propaganda machine(media) doesn't help on either side.

As for the driving.....
Hand guns was banned cause they saw roadrage a commin!
I will NOT drive here! I WILL get a gun!
These people are taught how to pass a test...not how to drive.
Not even in the tiniest bit!
Once they get in a car,respect is a foriegn language!


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> In the end, the people get "sold" what they are willing to buy. I wouldnt buy the "russian roullette" board game no matter who hawked it. How often I saw it sold on TV or how overworked I was...While media can influence, people are having something reinforced that they have believed somewhat true for a while. Thats the real problem. If you want to change their minds, IMO the way to do it is show them there is a better way, and take the high road while doing it. Not insult, degrade or call them idiots.....


Makes sense......


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

I guess the political sheep are being lead by the media wolves. Good thing the sheepdogs are here to lead us to safety...:shrug:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

I am a bit familiar with the Savage loonbox because listening to his show helps pass the time of driving cross the desert--and because, wherever you go know, somebody like him is screaming at some professorial type who actually knows what they're talking about and is trying to explain it politely, only to be met with screams of, "Traitor! Traitor!!!"

But what I don't get is what's actually so frightening about just living--I mean, did you LOOK at the General Self Defense forum's thread on weapons in the home?


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Get some good music or books on tape.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

Uh...I know you're not going to answer, but I'm interested in why you're not going to answer.

What's so bad, that simple disagreements over politics and policies are so often met with a barrage of personal accusations?


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Um...well its rarely the topic that results in the flames. Its all the "umms".."well I know this isnt going to make a difference"..."some people are just like Savage".."perhaps you should go read (translated, Im not going to have a civil conversation explaining my point of view but I will show you how well read I am)...etc. extras that come with these "discussions" that causes them to degrade. A lot of "passive aggressive Ad Hominums (sp?)" in some peoples posts. I tend towards the aggressive rather than the passive at times, but I can return the ball. I have had plenty of disagreements with people here that stayed quite civil, or got heated but in a friendly rivalry sort of way....some people however I do "treat in kind". 

Tell me why it appears that some people catch more of what they consider "rude behavior" than others.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

Again, the fact that you insist on personalizing what I'm asking is part of what I'm asking about. But since you ask, "Uhhh...," is what I write in lieu of writing, "Are you nuts?" sometimes, "You might want to read," is just a professor thing, big deal, and I'm afraid I don't think I write much about what PEOPLE are like; I write about what their WORDS seem to resemble.

But what's so wrong with the country that this kind of stuff appears everywhere in the media, in endless barrages from right-wingers for whom nothing seems to be enough? Why the loopy tetchiness over ANYTHING less than a salute and three, "Yessirs, President Bush?"


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Why do people who have no problem tearing into other people on the internet suddenly get so touchy? If some people were civil, perhaps they would be treated in kind and at least have people rally to their defense when treated otherwise. 

As to the rest, why do some people assume that if somebody disagrees with them that they are lock step Bushites? While admittedly I am Pro Military/LE, that doesnt necessarily translate to Pro Administration. While I admit I dont hate/dislike the current administration as much as others, its deninately not an all or nothing situation. I thought one didnt believe in sheep analogies.

Then again, I seem to recall some people posting some rationalization for their "tone" at one time. I just havent been able to find it again....

Freedom of speech doesnt mean a mandate to listen....IMO everybody has a right to say what they want and they pretty much do around here dont they?Just be ready to get some in return.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

Sorry that you feel that way. I'd respond in depth (for example, I'd note...never mind) but I am--how many times have I now said this--not really interested in personalizing this. I'm just asking a question.

So AGAIN: what is so wrong with the way the country is that folks find it OK to launch all sorts of personal attacks on the fellow Americans' decency and patriotism, often with little or no provocation? Why not just explain positions and ideas and supply facts--what's the big emergency that makes something so simple impossible?

I mean, assume that from time to time I screw up and don't get the tone right, or something--so what's the big deal? Ahura-Mazda knows I choke back a lot of things I might write, and try (OK, yes, I know, I don't always succeed, quel surprise) to cut through to the issue again...so what's the Big Disaster?

I mean, anybody out there REALLY think that the apocalypse is right round the corner? That the libs and lesbians really ARE taking over our schools? That everybody who voted for Kerry was a traitor, that Kerry really was a dishonorable man? That the ACLU and Amnesty International really are Out To Get America? Any of that stuff we're barraged with now?

C'mahn--what's the probelm? What's so bad with the country?


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 23, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Freedom of speech doesnt mean a mandate to listen....IMO everybody has a right to say what they want and they pretty much do around here dont they?Just be ready to get some in return.


At least there is a "Ignore" feature here.


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Absolutely nothing that hasnt been "wrong" since 1776. I seem to recall that our fine citizens once fought a war with each other over some dispute at one time or another...odd how folks who ask are the ones that seem to post theyre "problems" with Pax Americana at every turn. I mean does anybody really think that the president of the US is involved in some sort of star chamber intent on world domination and that he let 9/11 happen to set the plan in motion? Granted you havent stated that, but there isnt a lot of "that needs to change but America is sound" sentiment expressed by the side I tend to argue with. Why is it that anybody who expresses some patriotic sentiment gets classified as a rights trampeling Bush brown noser?


----------



## MisterMike (May 23, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry that you feel that way. I'd respond in depth (for example, I'd note...never mind) but I am--how many times have I now said this--not really interested in personalizing this. I'm just asking a question.



Are you the only one here who can ask a question and only be "just asking a question?" I think I've tried that one the past here.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So AGAIN: what is so wrong with the way the country is that folks find it OK to launch all sorts of personal attacks on the fellow Americans' decency and patriotism, often with little or no provocation?



Nothing is wrong with the country. Just a few indivduals.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I mean, anybody out there REALLY think that the apocalypse is right round the corner? That the libs and lesbians really ARE taking over our schools? That everybody who voted for Kerry was a traitor, that Kerry really was a dishonorable man? That the ACLU and Amnesty International really are Out To Get America? Any of that stuff we're barraged with now?
> 
> C'mahn--what's the probelm? What's so bad with the country?



I think it's kinda like the frog in the warm water, slowly being heated. It's a slow process but eventually he gets cooked. Again, it's not the country these guys go on about, just a few individuals. I haven't heard half of the stuff you mentioned and proll'y listen to more talk radio than you do. Going after a few off the wall talk show hosts isn't going to gain your team any points. You gotta come up with some fundamentally important ideals that the right wingers have that are just so terribly contradictory to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 23, 2005)

My team? Just a few individuals? Frogs? What the hell are you talking about?

That's precisely what I'm talking about. Why the rudeness? C'mahn--do you really think we're sitting out here, engaged in some grand conspiracy of idiots? 

Actually, I'm just starting to think that conservatives have a point--manners certainly have declined. It's a pity that I have to note that however crassly you happen to think the other guy's behaving, the thing to do is to TRY and respond politely.

But I see that AGAIN, there's no answer. here's the question: what's so bad, that it demands the sort of personal attacks, conspiracy fantasies, and invective that we see all the time these days, especially from people who identify themselves as right-wingers, conservatives, Republicans, and fundamentalists? It's not just a few--it's all the rightist political talk shows, which is pretty much all of them.

What is it that's so bad out there?

Personally, I blame John McLaughlin. After all, Joe Pyne and Alan Burke, they daid.


----------



## Tgace (May 23, 2005)

Theres enough of that **** to go around on both sides. Why is it that everything that comes out of liberal mouths seems to be "America sucks because...", "Our way of life is wrong because..."?

Whats wrong with conservatives?

http://www.dogchurch.org/scriptorium/RightState.htm


What wrong with Liberals?

http://www.dogchurch.org/scriptorium/LeftState.htm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> When I drive to and from work--long commute, don't ask--I often get stuck with AM radio. And on AM radio (unless I can get Jim Rome) there's an endless barrage of what I'd have to call right wing and fundamentalist Christian jazz to listen to.
> 
> Apparently, our country's going straight to hell. Apparently, every murderer gers off. Apparently, the liberal-left-lesbian conspiracy will--sometime next week--take every gun, force everybody to have abortions wheteher they're preggnant or not, and burn every Bible. Apparently, young people are so destroyed by radical professors like me that they all hate their country. Apparently, America is saturated with traitors. Well, them and illegal immigrants.
> 
> ...


Probably the same reason you do, they think they're right. I mean, ask yourself why you're complaining. What are YOU so afraid of?

Ironically enough, with all the "invective" supposedly shouted by conservative talk show hosts, it's the leftists talk shows that play segments simulating the assassination of a sitting president.  I don't recall Rush Limbaugh simulating shooting Clinton when he was in office. Physician heal thyself.


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2005)

> what's so bad, that it demands the sort of personal attacks, conspiracy fantasies, and invective that we see all the time these days, especially from people who identify themselves as right-wingers, conservatives, Republicans, and fundamentalists?



Again, your question is baseless. You may see that in a few radio talk show hosts, op-ed columns and TV personalities. Hmmm, what do they all have in common? 

Pretty sad you can only see one side of it though. One would have thought more of the poster. Or maybe you do, but feel it is justified since all the personal attacks on the President, conspiricay theories about the war and invective from those who identify themselves as Democrats, liberals and secularists is all because of the war?

Do you honestly expect both side to play nice now? The divide is only widening.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Theres enough of that **** to go around on both sides. Why is it that everything that comes out of liberal mouths seems to be "America sucks because...", "Our way of life is wrong because..."?
> 
> Whats wrong with conservatives?
> 
> ...


Excellent points brought up in both articles.  A clear, more concise,and more balanced critique of modern american political leanings than this thread started with.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Excellent points brought up in both articles. A clear, more concise,and more balanced critique of modern american political leanings than this thread started with.


Yeah, I like a lot of what the guy has to say, on both sides.



> The problem with the liberals is not Secular Humanism, it's moral relativism, the idea that the Good is unknowable. The fallacy of that idea is that the Bad is knowable, and throughout human history, we have known it often and well. Moral relativism just isn't up to dealing with hard-core evil.
> 
> But the liberal brand of moral relativism isn't so much relative as perfectionist. They have a "sense" of the Good, but nobody comes anywhere close to meeting it. I met a young very liberal musician who adamantly argued that there was no fundamental difference between the actions of the Soviet Union and the actions of the United States. That we did not militarily occupy or subjugate our allies (as did the Soviets  remember Germany and Japan were our _enemies_ in WW II), that we did not institute artificial famine, killing millions of our own citizens to make economic "progress" (as did the Soviets), etc., seemed to make no impression on him. I'll admit that he is an extreme case, but his type is common. He denies that the United States is basically good, because it is imperfect. He prefers to bemoan the flaws in this country rather than consider ways to use the country's strengths to correct them. (He also forgets that international politics is like the politics of a dysfunctional family - and that acting sane when everyone else is acting crazy can put you at a disadvantage.)
> 
> This attitude is partly based on a kind of learned helplessness that comes from a distorted individualism. If you as an individual can't do anything about the evils you see in the world, you tend to think the problems are insoluble, and give up. This defeatist attitude amounts to amnesia regarding the successful community organizing by many liberals in the 1960's and 1970's. Of course you can't do anything about social, national, or global problems by yourself. You have to act in community with your fellow human beings. And if your fellow human beings simply do not form a community, you have to create it.[23]


Which encapsulates 99% of the arguments Ive had on this forum regarding my view of America vs. how I perceive others views based on their arguments.

And even though there are other points I disagree with, like his capitol punishment stance, I can accept his viewpoint because there are many other points I do agree with. Maybe thats part of the issue here. Many people here seem to be at odds on EVERY issue....


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

Uh...you folks DO know that this is explicitly a liberal Christian website? That it attacks a lot of the conservative/right-wing fantasies, and explicitly says that a lot of this stuff comes out of an, "ideology of anxiety," which is kinda my point?

However, it simply repeats pretty much the same old same old stuff about libs and lefties we've all heard a thousand times.

To take one example:the article cited explicitly claims that libs/leftists are, "fundamentalists," who, "hate themselves," and that there is, "a sinister aspect," to their view of the world. To prove this, they mention a couple of conversations in Berkeley. Nowhere are any of the thousands of books, articles, discussions, etc., that libs and lefties write. Same old same old: I don't really want to know what I'm talking about, I'm not gonna find out, I just want to repeat the same stuff back...

Why the endless caricatures?

And as for the, "moral relativism," bit, what would be more morally relativistic than a President who spent most of his early life screwing around, then became a born-again? who claims Christian values, but who lied to get us into a war we apparently didn't need to be in? who didn't serve, but who had the barefaced gall to build his campaign around attacking his opponent for his service? Or--what's more morally relativistic--the argument that morality is built up by human beings as a social contract (which is kinda what our laws say anyway), or Henry Kissinger's Realpolitik?

And what are folks so WORRIED about, that they have to accuse everybody who doesn't agree with them of being immoral, of being traitorous, of being unrealistic?

I liked the Blind Chihuahua. The attempt at trashing everybody was nice to see. It's hard to argue that the indictment of the silly way leftists sometimes talk and behave is wrong--because it's not. But it's just a gussied-up version of the Same Old Stuff.

Oh yes. Michael, in answer to your question, when I turn on the radio and TV and hear people--daily--screaming that anybody who believes anything like what I believe is a traitor, or screaming that people like me (you know...teachers) are the root of all evil in American society, or screaming that we oughta just wipe out everybody who disagrees with them, or screaming that teaching evolution is the Devil's work, yes, I get a little bothered. And when I see the same from the libs and lefties--screaming that YOU'RE a traitor, screaming that YOU oughta be fired, screaming that YOU are the whole prob with the country, screaming that YOU are morally corrupt, why then, you too will have some solid ground for worrying. 

But basically I worry about bills more.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

So he's right about conservatives but wrong about liberals....typical. Why am I not surprised?


----------



## ginshun (May 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> He's about our latest rabid loon on talk radio





			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I am a bit familiar with the Savage loonbox





			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> what is so wrong with the way the country is that folks find it OK to launch all sorts of personal attacks on the fellow Americans


 Enough said


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

First place, Sparky, discussing. I only whine personally--and the fact that rather than discuss anything, you choose instead to inject the personal note is precisely what I'm talking about.

Second off, yes, I'm quite aware of the lacunae in what I write. Are you?


----------



## ginshun (May 24, 2005)

I just find it very entertaining that you make a whole thread about how conservative talk show hosts are so bad because they are constently throwing personal attacks, and in the process call them "rabid loonballs"

 Am I the only one who sees the hypocasy in that? And last time I checked my name wasn't Sparky. Keep those insults coming though, it helps.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

Odd when the most confrontational people start complaining about civility isnt it?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

First off, "ginshun," (I'd go with "Sparky," myself), I see that you edited out your typical crack about my supposedly, "whining," to which I was responding.

Second off, no, what's odd is that I still can't seem to find a actual answer to a pretty simple question: why do some folks--like you two--need personally to attack anybody who disagrees with them about politics?

If you're wondering why I referred to Savage as a rabid loonbox, remember, this is the guy who got on air and told gay people that they should just shut up an die horribly, which they deserve. Ann Coulter's written a whole book claiming that ALL libs and leftists are traitors. G. Gordon Liddy and his ilk get on the air and say that ATF and FBI agents should be shot in the head; Jerry falwell claims that 9/11 was God's Punishment for the ACLU and for lesbians. "Rabid loonbox," sounds about right for that sort of nonsense. 

You shouldn't have that much trouble finding leftists who write just as stupidly. I've tried to get you to look up, say, Louis Althusser--great ammo for your claims!

And if you want perfection outta me, you'll want to bring your own.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

Whos arguing politics?  I havent noticed any support or attacks against any political stance here....besides saying that conservatives and fundamentalists are nasty, while somehow implying that liberals are not.

Perhaps its not the ideas that garner the venom as much as the attude of the person arguing it...:shrug:


----------



## ginshun (May 24, 2005)

I admit that I did edit out the part about you whining, but I did it before I read your post. Sorry, I thought it made a better point as it is now.

 I did not intend a question about you whining to be taken as an insult to you. I don't believe that I at any point personally insulted you.

 I did however ask you why it is OK for you to launch personal attacks at the likes of Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, and then become offended when they insult others. I have yet to recieve an answer.

     Or maybe "rabid loonball" is a term of endearment, and I just misinterpreted it. If that is the case I am sorry.

  [edit] never mind, you did answer.  They have views different than yours, so that makes it OK for you to insult them.  Fine.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, "ginshun," (I'd go with "Sparky," myself)


 and then you insult my name in the very post.?!?! Honestly, I'd give you a bigger shovel, but I think you are already using a backhoe. You have insulted me in every response so far.  I quit, you're not worth my time.  You win, conservatives are evil.


----------



## Marginal (May 24, 2005)

It is odd that the voice for furthering a right wing agenda seems to cheifly put fourth by the rabid outliers. No one claiming conservatism on this thread seems to agree with the likes of Savage, so why is it that he, along with the rest of the folks making completely over the top claims are the public face of the convervative movement?

Why's the conservative movement "cool" with that?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

Uh...do you find Savage's comments something other than, "nasty?" Coulter's? Hannity's verbal bullying? Limbaugh's pomposity? How about O'Reilly's? McLaughlin's? The current Republican Party bigwigs, starting with Tom DeLay?

And ginshun, stop whining. You're not worth my time. Nothing personal meant, of course---c'mahn, that's absurd.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

While I consider my political views to be "conservative". I could care less about any "movement". Somehow, certain people like to polarize everybody into camps. I guess its easier to believe Im a Savage fan, with a life size poster of Bush in my office who wants the Church to run the country. Than it is to believe Im a working class Cop raising a family in suburbia who loves his country, supports the military, sometimes goes to church (hope my mom isnt reading), is more anti than pro abortion (but agrees in its necessity under some circumstances), thinks that homosexuals should not be discriminated against in the military, women should be allowed in combat if they meet standards, etc. etc.

I guess you have to express some contempt for the president and constantly bemoan the problems with our country or else you get labeled a Neo-Con.


----------



## psi_radar (May 24, 2005)

Robert, you're really getting into pot-calling-the-kettle-black territory here.  Maybe you think you're a little less transparent in your posts than you actually are, but your outright contempt for all things (and people) right-wing is palpable and I'm sure insulting to those on that side of the fence. Not a good way to approach a dialogue meant supposedly for understanding.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

Seemed like a "why are all you guys such *******s" thread from the get go to me....


----------



## ginshun (May 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I guess you have to express some contempt for the president and constantly bemoan the problems with our country or else you get labeled a Neo-Con.


 yup


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

Well, I'd guess I'm less than perfect. I get tired of the personal attacks, and occasionally (far less than is thought by some) crack back.

And while I do not hold the people I talk to on forums in contempt, I do rather despise the way guys like Savage, and Limbaugh, and Hannity, and Coulter, and and and (it's a long list) get well-paid to spew hate on the radio. Who wouldn't?

However, I don't call people traitors; I don't tell them they're weak or neurotic or whiny; I don't claim they hate their country; I don't (long list follows) do a lot of the things I see other posters doing regularly.

And what I'm asking is: what's all the big huhu? It's just discussion.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

Why is it some people can have a "discussion", even when they disagree, while others seem to get into pissing matches with everybody? Legitimate question, not directed... Perhaps its less the message as it is the messenger. There seems to be various "types" of political conversation Ive observed. People who enjoy disagreeing, laugh about it and have another beer. People who agree to disagree and stay civil. People who can get into full blown arguments but get over it. And others who just butt heads at every turn. Its more about the people (and how they act and interact) then it is about the politics.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

Oh, I'm pretty sure it's the politics. The other stuff's just an excuse....mostly. But while I certainly do screw up, I don't seem to screw up any more than, "some people...."


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 24, 2005)

Bear in mind that Coulter, Savage, O'Reilly, et al are not "Conservatives."  Neither are Bush-Cheney and company. These people are radicals.  They have a radical agenda, they "conserve" nothing, not money, not resources, not privacy. REAL conservatives favor low taxes, limited government, and limited spending.  These folks favor low taxes for the wealthy, big spending, and MASSIVE government.

What I object to among the "pundits" is venom spewing without factual argument.  It's real easy to call people "latte drinking liberals," "feminazis" or "girly men."  It's a lot harder to back up a cogent argument with fact.

Randi Rhodes is strident, no doubt, but she will read, ad nauseum, statistics, case law, and whatever it takes to back herself up. Limbaugh does no such thing, which is why he's frequently wrong.  And strident.


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/righttalkradio_10-13.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/interviews/harrison.html


----------



## 47MartialMan (May 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Why is it some people can have a "discussion", even when they disagree, while others seem to get into pissing matches with everybody? Legitimate question, not directed... Perhaps its less the message as it is the messenger. There seems to be various "types" of political conversation Ive observed. People who enjoy disagreeing, laugh about it and have another beer. People who agree to disagree and stay civil. People who can get into full blown arguments but get over it. And others who just butt heads at every turn. Its more about the people (and how they act and interact) then it is about the politics.


Actually, the politics brings out the "best" :shrug:, of people.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 24, 2005)

_Why is it some people can have a "discussion", even when they disagree_

Some view it as a way of better refining ideas as we go forward in history.

Some view it as a competition to 'win', and thus the other side must 'lose'


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...you folks DO know that this is explicitly a liberal Christian website? That it attacks a lot of the conservative/right-wing fantasies, and explicitly says that a lot of this stuff comes out of an, "ideology of anxiety," which is kinda my point?
> 
> However, it simply repeats pretty much the same old same old stuff about libs and lefties we've all heard a thousand times.
> 
> ...


So what you're saying is that you liked what it said about your counterparts, the far right religious wackos, but you didn't like what it said about you? Sounds like it hit the nail on the head on both counts. Extreme nuts SHOULD be offended by those articles, rightwing or leftwing. Sounds like you found one side to identify with. I'm sure your mirror images on the religious right would find a rare moment to agree with you.  None of it offended me because i'm not A) A radical religious right wing nut bent on bringing on the second coming or B) A radical leftwing idealogue bent on bringing on the revolution.  Now that I think about it, there's one MORE way religous right and radical left are so much a like.  They both believe in some sort of coming apocalypse that will remake the world.  Religious right believes Jesus is coming bac and the Radical left believe in some sort of revolution.  It's why they hate each other so much, they are competing religions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I'd guess I'm less than perfect. I get tired of the personal attacks, and occasionally (far less than is thought by some) crack back.
> 
> And while I do not hold the people I talk to on forums in contempt, I do rather despise the way guys like Savage, and Limbaugh, and Hannity, and Coulter, and and and (it's a long list) get well-paid to spew hate on the radio. Who wouldn't?
> 
> ...


Nah, you just call them Fascists, claim they sound like Hitler, and attempt to paint them as "hate filled" and evil incarnate blah blah blah. Get over yourself. That's why you accuse them of "Spewing hate", more attempts to paint the opposition as fascist. 

Do you actually think you're clever enough to pull that trick off without anyone noticing? Do you call it hate filled when a leftist talk show host talks about assasinating a sitting president and punctuates the point with gunshots in the background? I never heard anything like that on Limbaugh. 

I don't recall rightwingers throwing pies at people they disagree with. Could it be that what makes you maddest is that the right has actually developed well thought out arguments that destroy the lefts asinine positions? I don't think i've ever heard anything "Hate filled" in the sense of threatening violence or trying to provoke it from ANYONE you've mentioned. In fact, i've seen a couple of Ann Coulters visits to universities, it isn't her yelling profanity, it's the leftist college students.  Yet COULTER is hatefilled?  Please. I have heard some pretty condescending comments from them about asinine statements made by lefties, is that "hate filled"? lol. 

Again, get over it. Are you so idealogically driven that you don't see when you are engaging in the same types of activities you accuse others of? I mean, come on, I rarely see a post from you that you haven't A) Insinuated your oppositions was fascist (or "hatefilled) or B) Outright called them such. Way to change the tone of the dialogue there partner.


----------



## ginshun (May 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Are you so idealogically driven that you don't see when you are engaging in the same types of activities you accuse others of?


 I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence who reads this thread.


----------



## michaeledward (May 25, 2005)

That is twice now someone has referenced a radio threat of assassination against a sitting president by an accused 'Liberal' program. Please expand on this reference ... who said it, on what broadcasts, when?

You know, provide some context and a source ... like this.

On August 26, 1994, G. Gordon Liddy told his radio listeners: "_Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests._" Liddy's advice that day was explicit: "_They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches._"

On September 15, 1994, for example, Liddy told his listeners: "_If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head._" The theme was repeated so often that Liddy's callers began to exclaim "head shots!" to express their agreement with the host, the way Rush Limbaugh's callers say "megadittos."


----------



## ginshun (May 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That is twice now someone has referenced a radio threat of assassination against a sitting president by an accused 'Liberal' program. Please expand on this reference ... who said it, on what broadcasts, when?


 It was Al Frankens talk show not long ago.  It was meant as a joke, but was in very poor taste IMO.  People like Sean Hannity and a few other conservative commentators made a huge deal about it.  I will see if I can find some more info on it.


----------



## ginshun (May 25, 2005)

Actually,  here is a different one from Randi Rhodes.

  In a allusion to the Godfather she says:

_[font=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"The Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn't his father or his brother  take him out for a little fishing, and let him say some Hail Marys  he loves God so much.  You know, Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee  pow [gunshot sound]  works for me."

[/font]_I am almost sure that there was one on Al Frankens show that was done like a comedy skit too, so I am not sure which one people are refering to.

 [Edit]  Never mind, I guess the skit was on her show too. Sorry Al.

Here is the story in the Wahsington Times


----------



## michaeledward (May 25, 2005)

I found this report ... 

http://www.columbustownhall.com/townhall/index.php?act=ST&f=18&t=2356&

There is a link to the audio of the Randi Rhodes Show introduction.

For the record ... it never references the 'President'. It certainly infers the President ... a "spoiled child", an "ungrateful whelp".

So, follow the link, listen to the audio ... and then argue *against* the second amendment (American Associate of Armed Retired Persons - that's the joke) and the first amendment. 

Nothin' like givin' away what it is to be an American. 

Go Go Gadget!


----------



## Andrew Green (May 25, 2005)

The thing that sticks out to me is how this seems to be such a either or thing down there.  You are either right, or left.  No in betweens, no parts from each.  One or the other.  With us or against us attitude...

 Both sides try to do it...  If you believe x you are leftists/rightest and therefore must also believe y and z...

 Dividing a country that cleanly can't be good for either side...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I found this report ...
> 
> http://www.columbustownhall.com/townhall/index.php?act=ST&f=18&t=2356&
> 
> ...


The point wasn't about the 1st or 2nd amendment, it was about robertson making the claim that conservative commentators were "hatefilled".  I made the point that Limbaugh never created a spot simulating (i'm sorry, inferring) the assasination of a sitting president.  Nor, do I recall a vast rightwing "pie throwing" operation.  Again, the leftist pot certainly has no room calling the kettle black on the divisiveness issue.  Again, physicians heal thyselves.


----------



## TonyM. (May 25, 2005)

My take on all talk radio.
If a conservative and liberal talk show host were to jump off the empire state building whom would hit the ground first?
Answer: Who really cares!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> My take on all talk radio.
> If a conservative and liberal talk show host were to jump off the empire state building whom would hit the ground first?
> Answer: Who really cares!


Whoever they land on.


----------



## psi_radar (May 25, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I found this report ...
> 
> http://www.columbustownhall.com/townhall/index.php?act=ST&f=18&t=2356&
> 
> ...



To be fair to Randi, she did apologize for the skit the following day and gave some excuses, which she freely admitted weren't good enough. Taking responsibility and apologizing. Imagine that.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 25, 2005)

1. The claim to be, "centrist," or filled merely with, "common sense," or to, "have no politics," is, as always, an ideological belief.

2. Hate to burst bubbles, but I happen to be a card-carrying member of the "radical left." really--they sent one to me, from their Fortress of Solitude under the Kremlin. Or was it the Vatican? I forget. Anyway, this revolution stuff's a buncha hooey. Dangerous hooey. 

3. Writing as a scholarly type, there is an enormous difference between exactly citing a primary source--G. Gordon Liddy's radio show--and saying, "I am almost sure," then citing something in the "Washington Times," a right-wing newspaper owned by the Third Adam himself, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Whyn't you just quote the, "Volkischer Beobachter," and yes, that's a pretty strong suggestion of fascism. (Incidentally, I'd be interested to see where I've called anybody a fascist. Well, maybe Mussolini.) But then, the Rev. Moon (Group marriages? Korean CIA?) teaches that Adam, Christ and himself are the Three Adams, and that his paper is his tool to bring about Christ's Reign on Earth.

4. No organized group of rightists. Really. Personally, I take guys like Karl Rove and Ralph Reed at their word...

5. Sorry. I pretty much take Al Franken as an entertainer. And the rest of 'em--difference is, Franken doesn't screech endlessly about traitors, lie without the slightest remorse, call to have people shot. And if we're really going to get into personal moral character, perhaps folks might want to contemplate little things like: a) which of these guys has ever served? b) which ones have actually gone to Iraq? c) which ones are recovering junkies of one kind or another? d) which ones got nailed on sexual harassment? e) which ones are convicted felons?


----------



## ginshun (May 25, 2005)

You can't honestly be doubting that that Randi Rhodes incident happened because it was reported in the Times.  Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that you believe the Times fabricated that whole story?  If so, then I don't really know what to say.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 25, 2005)

Who cares if someone calls the President a spoiled brat, or Barbara Boxer a shrew? Listen or don't listen. I have a problem with lies, fabrications, and gross inaccuracies.

For example, today, Al Franken played a clip of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Jeremy Glick, whose father died in 9/11 and who is against the Iraq war. THEN Franken played a clip of a more recent O'Reilly show where O'Reilly said that Glick called the 9/11 attack an "alleged" attack, and that Glick said that Bush and Cheney "orchestrated the attack." Glick had said no such thing, which was obvious because Franken played the original interview. Those tapes were your "primary sources." (Unfortunately, most of us don't have easy access to government primary sources)

Now it seems that before O'Reilly made those comments about Glick, he also could have--should have--reviewed the original tapes. So was it inaccuracy, or lies? Because those tapes were "primary sources." Glick found the false comments about him very offensive, and possibly harmful to his career. Do you think O'Reilly will retract? 

To me, that's what makes the difference between an intelligent political conversation, which I'm happy to engage in, and nonsense, which I have no time for. It's not the epithets or lack thereof, it's the factual back-up--or lack thereof.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 25, 2005)

1. Ginshun: when a newspaper is owned by an extreme right-wing religious nutcake like Moon, who claims that a) he is the Third Adam, and b) he uses his newspaper to further his religious and political goal--which is to bring about the Kingdom of Chirst on earth and have himself installed as King of the World--you are damn skippy that I tend not to believe anything his paper publishes about politics or religion. And neither should you; at the very least, you should find a corroborating source before accepting any such story.

2. Why in the world would anyone want to take such sources seriously? You can look it up on Rhodes' own website, right? You can find a real newspaper to consult...why use a grossly untrustworthy source like the "Washington Times?" And before anyone starts, here's the difference between that rag and the "New York Times:" Moon's background and intellectual origins are in right-wing fanaticism and a cultish view of Christianity; the other paper's owners are steeped in humanist philosophy and a businessman's viewpoint not very different from those of Franklin, Jefferson, et al. Assuredly they will have their blind spots, biases and shortcomings: nobody's saying (read carefully here!) that they're merely objective.

But anybody sane would take the New York paper's owners' approach any day.

3. So again, my question on this thread: there're lots of conservative sources ("The Economist;" "The National Review;" "Foreign Policy;" "The American Spectator" and many more) that I don't agree with and even find morally reprehensible at times, but which are certainly put out by intelligent people who do their homework and aren't religious lunatics. 

So why in the world would anybody bother with the likes of "The Washington Times?"


----------



## Tgace (May 25, 2005)

So when the Washington Times posts the baseball scores I should double check a different source?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 25, 2005)

I would. But as for what I ACTUALLY wrote, I was quite specific about WHICH TYPE of article to be wary of:

"I tend not to believe anything his paper publishes about POLITICS OR RELIGION. And neither should you; at the very least, you should find a corroborating source before accepting ANY SUCH story." (accents added for this reprint)

Please read more carefully; this is precisely the sort of thing that leads readers to mistrust a source.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So what's the Big Fear? Why the endless demands for political correctness, why the endless insistence on public worship, the constant personal attacks on other Americans who simply disagree?



'Cuz the lib'ral types are, like, total fairies, dude. Hah!  :ultracool 

In all seriousness, though, my guess would be its a collective reaction against the change taking place in much of American society. We are in the slow, slow, slow transition from an industrial society to an informational/digital society --- and that is inevitably accompanied by changes in worldviews and collective values, as well.

In other words, we are ever-so-slowly becoming global. And, as much of the conservative movements have pointed out, they _loathe_ anything "global" or "international" or "pluralistic". They adore isolationism, oppose "big government", and despise the United Nations. A lot of these guys just can't stand us moving from an us-first sociocentrism to a humanity-first worldcentrism. And, it scares the living hell out of them.

This is why Republicans like John McCain, who isn't afraid of international dialogue and communication, isn't bally-hooing about the "liberal conspiracy". But, guys like Bill Frist and Tom DeLay are.

Hrmm. Maybe they're right. Maybe it is all about "values". Agrarian values really can survive only so long, y'know...


----------



## ginshun (May 26, 2005)

Robert, Robert, Robert, what are we going to do with you? Discount sources all you want.  There is figgen audio of it posted in this thread.  Regardless of whether or not you dislike the owner of the paper, you are just being silly by argueing that the event never happened.  Or maybe your not even saying that, I haven't seen you actually adress the event in question, just the fact that you don't like the source of the article I posted.


 Alternate sources.

New York Daily News

Boston Hearld

FMQB Radio Vegas

New York Post

World Net Daily

 I am not sure who owns all of these outlets, but I am sure you do.  Let the source discounting begin.


----------



## Bammx2 (May 26, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> uuummmm.....
> yea.
> 
> They pretty much think the US are insane, power mad,war monging,paranoid schizoids.
> ...


Lord have mercy......

I am quite surprised.
Well....not really.

I wrote this post from "an outsiders" point of view because I am a civilian living abroad and I get opinions from all walks of life here and from a wide variety of cultures.
A hell of a lot more than you get from "podunk,ohio"(go Bucks!).
And not ONE person has a single word to say about how the OUTSIDE WORLD percieves the US!
Now granted.....
some of you,my best friend in life included,might think there is nothing outside of US borders and could care less about what "others" might think.
 Personally...I am happy where I am,but I am "true to my tribe"...but damn y'all! Some of you also have NO idea what its like to be persecuted JUST for being an americn in a "civil" country, just because OUR government is showing itself to be led by lunatcs! At leas thats what is percieved by the rest of the world.Even in the "civilised" countries who are our allies.
Now I'm not throwing up any "stats" here....
I am talking the "average joe" who has never been asked for thier opinions,but they still have something to say.
But,my God!
All I am seeing now is..."HE SAID,SHE SAID" bs and LOTS of finger pointing!
No wonder the world thinks we are lead by paranoid freaks!
Look at the bickering we do amongst ourselves! Let alone this "war on terror" isn't helping...MOST of the world just want the truth and a "war on terror" ain't it.
At least wasn't....it is now.
Not this garbage of bickering over who likes FOX,MSNBC who is on AM or FM.
Now we're just stomping the crap out of a loooooong dead horse.
Hell...this horse has been stomped so much...his shoes fit me!
 If we want "world peace"...don't you think we should see what the rest of the world has to say about it?
God bless you all and I would for one would fight for EVERYONES right(except michaely crook) to experss thier "opinions"... but can we find something we ALL agree on for once that it isn't percieved by most as petty?
"Left Wing,Right Wing".....they both taste the same with a little BBQ sauce on'em!
I may be american...but I sure as hell do NOT want a republican or democratic party running it! One sucks and the other blows!

Now that I have had my rant,I have more than likely bent someone out of shape and for that I apologies.
And for those who can't or won't accept my apologies...

Bring it Baby!

I'm here fer ya:ultracool 

And ya know what else?
I forgot why I started this rant anyway.
Thats another soapbox shot to hell.
Anybody got any duct tape?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

Ginshun, ginshun, ginshun. (And if you'd like me to be more polite, try it yourself.)

Please go back and read what I actually wrote. Several times. What I actually wrote was something simple, basic, and perfectly straightfoward: that it was important to consider the source.

I specifically added that given Rev. Sun Myung Moon's pretty crazy statements about religion and politics, and given his explicit claim that his newspaper existed to serve his religious and political goals, it was probably best to be very skeptical about anything in the "Washington Times," that had to do with religion or politics. I said nothing at all that would lead a decent reader to conclude that I'd told them not to read the thing at all.

I further noted--several times!--that there were also reasons to question the ideological slant of papers such as the, "New York Times," on the grounds that they spoke essentially for the middle class and for corporate America. It was simply the case that these groups do have a tradition of something like liberal humanism and objectivity, which meant that at least they THOUGHT they were committed to getting at reality when they reported. To offer a further example, the, "Times," offers a list of their screwups and corrections every issue; they also offered a specific self-criticism of their coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War, on the grounds that they had been far too sympathetic to the President's views and far too uncritical of his, "facts."

Let me add that the list of, "sources," you offered for facts--which included a right-wing Christian website and at least two newspapers well known for pandering when it comes to sex and violence--simply aren't even vaguely as credible as the, "Times," or, "National Review," or PBS and the BBC, or, "The Economist," or indeed any of the sources I repeatedly mentioned. 

If you want to be taken seriously, write and read seriously. Trying to oppose "The New York Times," and the BBC with "The New York Post," or, "World Net Daily," is the intellectual equivalent of bringing a whiffle ball bat to a gunfight.

Fer cripes' sake, at LEAST get on "Slate," and read Christopher Hitchens...


----------



## Andrew Green (May 26, 2005)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> They pretty much think the US are insane, power mad,war monging,paranoid schizoids.


 This is new? 

 Even up here in Canada there is a fair bit of this, and it has been growing pretty good over the past couple years...


----------



## ginshun (May 27, 2005)

Given the fact that the story is damning to a well known liberal commentator, I don't find it surprising that it is more widely reported in sources that slant to the right.  I am not even denying that those sources do.

 So are you going to consede that the story is true and actually comment on it, or just try to keep refuting the sources?

 You can't honestly still believe the story is a fabrication.  Actually I don't think that you ever did, it was just easier to dodge it than to say anything about it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

I'm responding pretty much in the way that you've responded to articles documenting the President's lies, Savage and Limbaugh's and Hannity's screeching accusations, the moral hypocrisy of guys like O'Reilly and William Bennett and Henry Hyde, the plagiarism of Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin, and the open corruption of Tom DeLay.

But since you ask, the article by Rhodes looks pretty stupid, and not very funny.


----------



## ginshun (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm responding pretty much in the way that you've responded to articles documenting the President's lies, Savage and Limbaugh's and Hannity's screeching accusations, the moral hypocrisy of guys like O'Reilly and William Bennett and Henry Hyde, the plagiarism of Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin, and the open corruption of Tom DeLay.
> 
> But since you ask, the article by Rhodes looks pretty stupid, and not very funny.


 Thank you.

 Since you bring up the rest I will respond as well.

 Presidents lies:  I am still not conviced he knowing outright lied, but he is shady as heck.  I will leave it at that.  I have never claimed to be a Bush lover.

 Savage and Limbaugh's and Hannity's screeching accusations:  Yup they are crazy, I admit that.  I just don't see the point in getting mad about it. I also think they have every right to say whatever they want.  Most people realize that they are not actual news broadcastors.  I have actually heard Savage say on several occations that his show is not objective, it is subjective; one mans opinion.  Personally I think his show is hilarious.

 the moral hypocrisy of guys like O'Reilly and William Bennett and Henry Hyde:  O'Reilly is an idiot, and I don't have any idea who the other two are.

 the plagiarism of Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin: Never heard of them

 the open corruption of Tom DeLay:  Don't really know much about that either to tell you the truth.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

1. DeLay is House Majority Whip. He's been censured three times by the Republican-controlled Ethics Committee; he's under State and Federal investigation for an assortment of corruption and illegal financing schemes.

2. Ambrose was "author," of "Band of Brothers," and frequently cited by conservatives and rightists in regard to helping establish our moral decline from the "greatest generation," of WWII. Goodwin was one of Reagan's principal speechwriters. They both got caught extensively plagiarizing their recent books.

3. Hyde? Strongest anti-abortion voice in the Senate. When he was 40, he drove his girlfriend to a women's clinic for an abortion. (I mention his age because when caught, he tried to claim that it was a, "youthful indiscretion.") Bennett? ex-Secretary of Education; makes his money lecturing on morality and selling his, "Readings From the Book of Morals," there's even a PBS cartoon. Got caught last year--has a serious gambling yen, dropped 6-10 mil over the last ten years or so.  

4. Oh. Savage--who I believe you've previously claimed never to've listened to or read--is funny, eh? Not a prob, compared to Rhodes, eh? Really. Let's look at a little of the laff riot:

From the May 12 Savage Nation:

Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you -- I don't need to go to Mr. Schmuck [pollster John] Zogby and ask him his opinion. I don't need anyone's opinion. I'll give you my opinion, because I got a better stethoscope than those fools. It's one man's opinion based upon my own analysis. The most -- I tell you right now -- the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one. They'd like an indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon. They want this over with. One thing people cannot live with, which is an undefined, limitless conflict, which is what we have now. They can't take it. They want this war over with, and they want it ended like the war against Japan. They'd like Big Boy dropped on one of the little cities over there. They don't care where. They don't care any more. The American people have had it up to here with this garbage.

In fact, Christianity has been one of the great salvations on planet Earth. It's what's necessary in the Middle East. Others have written about it, I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity but I'll get here a little later, I'll move up to that. It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings.

I'm going to give you one further example from my background as an anthropologist just so that you -- I'm trying to put context on this because you can go crazy if you don't have the context on this, because I'm going to lead up to something of what we must do to these primitives. Because these primitives can only be treated in one way, and I don't think smallpox and a blanket is good enough incidentally. Just before -- I'm going to give you a little precursor to where I'm going. Smallpox in a blanket, which the U.S. Army gave to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what I'd like to see done to these people, just so you understand that I'm not going to be too intellectual about my analysis here in terms of what I would recommend, what Doc Savage recommends as an antidote to this kind of poison coming out of the Middle East from these non-humans. 



Well, I see your point. That's the sorta stuff that had them rolling in the aisles at Treblinka.


----------



## ginshun (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. DeLay is House Majority Whip. He's been censured three times by the Republican-controlled Ethics Committee; he's under State and Federal investigation for an assortment of corruption and illegal financing schemes.
> 
> 2. Ambrose was "author," of "Band of Brothers," and frequently cited by conservatives and rightists in regard to helping establish our moral decline from the "greatest generation," of WWII. Goodwin was one of Reagan's principal speechwriters. They both got caught extensively plagiarizing their recent books.
> 
> ...


 I know who DeLay is, I just haven't actually looked into the acuasations or even listened to or read anything about it, so I don't want to comment.

 I and don't think that I claimed I never heard of Savage or that I never listened to him. I listen to him for probably a half hour a week, on my way home for about 5-10 minutes at a time when I work late. I never have read any of his books. I am sorry for being an insensative jerk, but I actually kind of giggled while I was reading that. I could just hear him going on a tie raid like that and can't help it. How can you not laugh at somebody that nuts? Honestly, if you take him seriously, then I suppose he does really make you mad. Really though, every time he goes crazy and starts just ripping his callers to shreads with insult after insult I laugh.

 I suppose I am laughing, but if I would take the time to really think about what he is saying it might bother me. Thats why I don't.


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> From the May 12 Savage Nation:
> 
> Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They don't even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you -- I don't need to go to Mr. Schmuck [pollster John] Zogby and ask him his opinion. I don't need anyone's opinion. I'll give you my opinion, because I got a better stethoscope than those fools. It's one man's opinion based upon my own analysis. The most -- I tell you right now -- the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one. They'd like an indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon. They want this over with. One thing people cannot live with, which is an undefined, limitless conflict, which is what we have now. They can't take it. They want this war over with, and they want it ended like the war against Japan. They'd like Big Boy dropped on one of the little cities over there. They don't care where. They don't care any more. The American people have had it up to here with this garbage.
> 
> ...



Jesus. Tap. Dancing. Christ.  :erg:  :erg:  :erg:


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2005)

Same old tune. Anybody who disagrees with me is wrong and its because of the radio pundit they listen too.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

1. Please explain precisely where I wrote that anybody who disagreed was wrong, or intended it. Do try and be specific.

2. "I suppose I am laughing, but if I would take the time to really think about what he is saying it might bother me. Thats why I don't." 

3. I gotta go with Jesus. Tap. Dancing. Christ.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 27, 2005)

This is really sad--to not even know or care about what influential people are saying and doing--and then to express an uneducated opinion about it.  Now I have a better understanding of why people vote the way they do.


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2005)

Well, I always have respect for people who are "in the fight" even when I dont agree with them. Heck I can respect somebody even when I dont like them. Most rudeness springs up over how people express their opinions vs. the opinion itself IMO. I also believe that they are more worthy of respect because at least they are speaking up for what they believe...educated or not. The value of their opinion may differ, but not their right to it. 

They are worth more than people who just enter into a debate and offer nothing but a few shots at people.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Please explain precisely where I wrote that anybody who disagreed was wrong, or intended it. Do try and be specific.
> 
> 2. "I suppose I am laughing, but if I would take the time to really think about what he is saying it might bother me. Thats why I don't."
> 
> 3. I gotta go with Jesus. Tap. Dancing. Christ.


You never said EVERYONE who disagreed with you is wrong, just all of us fascists.  While we're on the subject, if you want to talk about the shrill nature of politics in America AND be taken seriously, you'll take off the "A) All conservatives are either HATEFILLED Fascist bigots or B) HATEFILLED religious wackos blinders, and stop BELIEVING only sources that confirm and attempted to destroy any source to the contrary.  Keep in minde for every Savage there's a Janine Garrafalo.  Funny how one is a dangerous conservative commentator when he makes a comment you disagree with, and the other is just an entertainer whenever they say something offensive.  Get a grip, robertson, this isn't healthy for you.


----------



## Flatlander (May 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> When I drive to and from work--long commute, don't ask--I often get stuck with AM radio. And on AM radio (unless I can get Jim Rome) there's an endless barrage of what I'd have to call right wing and fundamentalist Christian jazz to listen to.
> 
> Apparently, our country's going straight to hell. Apparently, every murderer gers off. Apparently, the liberal-left-lesbian conspiracy will--sometime next week--take every gun, force everybody to have abortions wheteher they're preggnant or not, and burn every Bible. Apparently, young people are so destroyed by radical professors like me that they all hate their country. Apparently, America is saturated with traitors. Well, them and illegal immigrants.
> 
> ...


without having read any of this thread save the first post, I'd have to answer: perhaps for the same reason you were motivated to type this post.  Which is to say, they care about issues, and want to be involved.  That is how they choose to involve themselves.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> without having read any of this thread save the first post, I'd have to answer: perhaps for the same reason you were motivated to type this post. Which is to say, they care about issues, and want to be involved. That is how they choose to involve themselves.


That's pretty much what I said.  Apparently robertson is more entitled to an opinion than others are.


----------



## TonyM. (May 29, 2005)

Thank you all. I was unaware that not liking repulsive radical freaks meant I had an agenda.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

1. "Get a grip, robertson, this isn't healthy for you." Well, gosh. Thank ahura-mazda that nobody's stooping to personal insults rather than discuss the issues. I'd respond in kind, but I'm afraid that a) I don't actually think of people I don't know in such terms, and b) I don't actually believe it's right to make such comments.

2. When Janeann Garofalo starts trumpeting that she and her liberal buddies have elected a leftist government and everybody who sees the world differently had better watch out, I will cheerfully start ranking on Janeann Garofalo. 

3. Until that happens, I believe I'll just continue to look at the ACTUAL world.

4. Sigh. Everybody entitled own opinion and arguments, obviously. Everybody also entitled try to understand opinions and arguments--for ex, where all this anxiety's coming from.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. "Get a grip, robertson, this isn't healthy for you." Well, gosh. Thank ahura-mazda that nobody's stooping to personal insults rather than discuss the issues. I'd respond in kind, but I'm afraid that a) I don't actually think of people I don't know in such terms, and b) I don't actually believe it's right to make such comments.


 Nah, you just call us all fascists, right wing religious wackos, american taliban and other terms of endearment. It's a little late to take the high road for you robertson as anyone who reads your posts can probably attest. 

Besides, I don't think telling you to watch your blood pressure is a personal attack, at least not one in the ranks of calling someone fascist (Small "f" of course).  I actually like debating with you, robertson, and i'm merely pointing out that you need to work on your anxiety so that we can continue to debate for years to come.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. When Janeann Garofalo starts trumpeting that she and her liberal buddies have elected a leftist government and everybody who sees the world differently had better watch out, I will cheerfully start ranking on Janeann Garofalo.


 No you won't.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Until that happens, I believe I'll just continue to look at the ACTUAL world.


 So you're the one person on the planet who is seeing the "actual world", huh?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. Sigh. Everybody entitled own opinion and arguments, obviously. Everybody also entitled try to understand opinions and arguments--for ex, where all this anxiety's coming from.


 That's what I was trying to understand, robertson, where is all your anxiety coming from. Jeez, I try to understand opinions and arguments, and you get offended by that.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So you're the one person on the planet who is seeing the "actual world", huh?


If he's right, things are much worse than I thought...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If he's right, things are much worse than I thought...


Amen.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

Huh. I hadn't know that Janeanne Garofalo and her buddies had been announcing their success at electing a President, establishing a majority in Congress, etc.

Until then, I believe I'll just quote Joanna Russ', "The Female Man: "Why, how remarkable of you to be experts on things that have never happened."

Incidentally, still waitin' to see chapter-and-verse on who I called a fascist, a member of the Taliban, etc. Funny that such doesn't seem to be forthcoming.


----------



## Marginal (May 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Nah, you just call us all fascists, right wing religious wackos, american taliban and other terms of endearment. It's a little late to take the high road for you robertson as anyone who reads your posts can probably attest.



Reminds me of your clever "paradox" featuring liberals, unpopular wars, and women somehow.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Reminds me of your clever "paradox" featuring liberals, unpopular wars, and women somehow.


Oh you mean where I pointed out that certain activists believe A) That no US soldier should be at war in Iraq but that B) Women US soldiers should be at war in Iraq. That's not my paradox, I merely pointed it out.  I still don't see how that equates with calling someone a fascist, right wing, religious wacko, but if you see it, fine.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Huh. I hadn't know that Janeanne Garofalo and her buddies had been announcing their success at electing a President, establishing a majority in Congress, etc.


Heh, heh, only because they haven't HAD any success electing a President and establishing a majority in Congress, I thought that would have been painfully obvious to you by now.  I do recall them suggesting, however, that the president is a moron, a fascist, a dictator, a threat to the world, and insinuating he should be assasinated.  Hmmm.  How's that for invective?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Until then, I believe I'll just quote Joanna Russ', "The Female Man: "Why, how remarkable of you to be experts on things that have never happened."


 Alrighty then, sounds familiar.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Incidentally, still waitin' to see chapter-and-verse on who I called a fascist, a member of the Taliban, etc. Funny that such doesn't seem to be forthcoming.


 Why bother, anyone can read your posts and see for themselves your insinuations about those who disagree with you.


----------



## michaeledward (May 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Why bother, anyone can read your posts and see for themselves your insinuations about those who disagree with you.


I've read his posts. 

I don't recall seeing Dr. Rmcrobertson refering to everyone with whom he disagrees as a 'fascist bigots' or 'religious wackos blinders'. 

And yet, somehow, the claim keeps re-appearing.

And, one more thing. Someone made the statement ... 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Keep in minde for every Savage there's a Janine Garrafalo.


To which, I have to say ... No ... No there is not. 

If you would care to get into a 'tit-for-tat' competition of right-wing vs. left-wing commentators, and the comments they make ... I'll be happy to participate in that thread.


----------



## Marginal (May 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Oh you mean where I pointed out that certain activists believe A) That no US soldier should be at war in Iraq but that B) Women US soldiers should be at war in Iraq. That's not my paradox, I merely pointed it out.  I still don't see how that equates with calling someone a fascist, right wing, religious wacko, but if you see it, fine.



Both are generializations that rely on mapping stereotypical traits of a broad movement onto the beliefs of individuals. No real connection between one statement and the next except that they fit neatly into your preconceptions. 

For example, "someone who opposes one war must be a pacifst. Therefore people who are opposed to one particular war are hypocrites if they demand job equality for the participants."

Great, but one doesn't follow the other, and it's still a nonargument rather than a scathing attack. Might as well just be calling the others in the debate a "poopyhead" for all its effectiveness.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 1, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Both are generializations that rely on mapping stereotypical traits of a broad movement onto the beliefs of individuals. No real connection between one statement and the next except that they fit neatly into your preconceptions.
> 
> For example, "someone who opposes one war must be a pacifst. Therefore people who are opposed to one particular war are hypocrites if they demand job equality for the participants."


It's a nice try, but irrelavent.  We are referring to the SAME war. Further, they are saying that NO US soldier should be fighting in that war, none whatsoever...except, that women need to continue to fight.  If you can pull one group of soldiers out of the conflict, then you certainly go a long way to removing everyone from that conflict.  Problem is, that is a contradictory political objective. It's merely philosophical schizophrenia created by trying to support two contradictory political beliefs, but call it what you will. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Great, but one doesn't follow the other, and it's still a nonargument rather than a scathing attack. Might as well just be calling the others in the debate a "poopyhead" for all its effectiveness.


  I've been called the equivalent of "poopyhead" multiple times in these forums, do it again if you feel like it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 1, 2005)

Uh...hate to kick over the blocks, but the actual argument was that a) women soldiers should be allowed--indeed, encouraged--to take any assignment in the military for which they are qualified, including combat; b) the war in Iraq is stupid, because it was started with a pack of lies, does nothing about terrorism, involves precisely the nation-building the President insisted he would not be doing, and is being carried out with inadequate equipment. 

The two things have little to do with each other, and are certainly not either contradictory nor mutually exclusive. 

Self-contradiction would involve saying something like, "The US should not be nation-building shortly before getting the country into a war that's all about nation-building;" mutually exclusive would be something like, "The US is the greatest defender of human rights in the world, which is why it's OK that we have several thousands in illegal camps, and have tortured a few of them to death."


----------



## Marginal (Jun 1, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's a nice try, but irrelavent.  We are referring to the SAME war.



This particular war's incidental to how people think the US millitary should generally operate. 



> Further, they are saying that NO US soldier should be fighting in that war, none whatsoever...except, that women need to continue to fight.



Saying the war is pointless is one thing. Saying that the army shouldn't be needlessly understaffed is another. Similar issue on the whole armor for troops debacle. 



> If you can pull one group of soldiers out of the conflict, then you certainly go a long way to removing everyone from that conflict.



Not really. You simply weaken the group as a whole, decreasing their odds of survival. (Getting the troops currently in Iraq all killed isn't really what the dissenters have in mind.)



> I've been called the equivalent of "poopyhead" multiple times in these forums, do it again if you feel like it.



Might want to reread that previous post again. You missed the point entirely.


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 2, 2005)

Good post. Reminds me of how the pentagon destroyed moral in the RVN by rotating individuals out rather than units.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> OK, fine. So here's my question: what are these people so scared of, assuming they're really on the warpath and not just trying to get and keep listeners? Why the constant barrage of madness, the constant attacks on everybody with the slightest divergent ideas? Why the endless fussbudgeting around with other people's bedroom habits? Why the constant demands for more patriotism, more more more, with the likes of Michael Savage setting the rules for what patriotism is and how to display it?
> 
> .....there must be other explanations; what are they?


If you say it loudly enough and long enough, it becomes _true_. It's a fact that it *is* the truth for many people, and more are convinced by simply listening to the stuff-why do you think there are so many less "centrists" in a nation that used to be run by them?

Best example: people who should know better quoting Rush Limbaugh on global warming.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 3, 2005)

> rmcroberston
> *Account Closed*


Sorry to see you go. You will be missed.

Michael


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Sorry to see you go. You will be missed.
> 
> Michael


I'm not sure where to voice this, but since you started, I'll echo.  Sorry to see you go...now both Roberts I really respected are gone...


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 3, 2005)

.   

:asian:


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 3, 2005)

We butted heads on more than one occasion, but I'll miss him. I noticed he no longer posts on Kenponet, either. All the best to you, Robert!


----------



## Josh (Jun 3, 2005)

God has put us here to be in this battle of Good vs. Evil


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 3, 2005)

Josh said:
			
		

> God has put us here to be in this battle of Good vs. Evil


:roflmao:

Now that is a non-sequitur if I have ever seen one.


----------

