Conservatism

[PLAYER57832]

Ugh. We had a perfectly good argument until that nonseniscal drivel.

You deny that is happening?

Looked into Texas/Louisiana/Kentucky educational standards debates lately (just to name a few)?
Looked into licensing practices, results of consolidation of stations, lately?
How many truly liberal stations do you find on YOUR dial? Better yet, how many that are not truly conservative?

You're falling into the same line of logic conservatives do time and time again. Using Big Brother in a political debate is essentially conceding IMO, because you've been reduced to fear as an argument. You might as well shout to the ends of the earth that deregulation leads to death camps.

No, this is more like talking about the dangers of electing Hitler in pre-WWII Germany.
Or to quote "I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean I am wrong".

Like I said above, look into what is happening in those states. I can supply you with a few links if you need.

Let's talk about the subject at hand.

I was, but OK..

If we allowed states to issue licenses instead of the federal government, what would that change?

It will allow some states to escape those "nasty regulations' that still require all areas to have alternative sources of news, etc. In truth, those rules are barely enforced or almost mute anyway, but some people have successfully fought off the biggest mergers on "maintaining diversity" grounds. The difficulty is that the "diversity" is often more about music styles and not political viewpoints.

ONLY NPR stood apart to truly attempt to cover all sides. I am not saying they always succeeded or that the effort was 100% in all cases by any means, but they have done much better at covering the range of opinions "out there". I n fact, the reason they have the reputation for a "liberal bias" is because, in addition to attempting to provide balance coverage within their news shows, they also try to cover views not well covered elsewhere. Right now, NPR is about the only source for anything BUT highly conservative radio in many locals.. particularly if you don't have access to Sirius.

In our area, I know many, many very ardent conservatives who have been listening to NPR because they got so fed up with Fox, Christian radio "news", etc. They do NOT agree with my politics, but we all want decent information. NPR has provided that. THAT is, I maintain the primary reason NPR was targeted... because they have been a bit "too successful.

.. AND that is why there is now even more of a push to "open the market" in radio and other media outlets.

[GTE]

I love how some people still have some strange delusion that democrats aren't the opposite of conservatives.

They are not. Nor is "Republican" a synonym for "conservative".

Never said that.

I love how some people still have some strange delusion that democrats aren't the opposite of conservatives.

Your statement strains the very fabric of logic.

Democrats are, by the general platform, in all ways, socially, politically and economically, not conservative in their ideals.

A Democrat is not at all necessarily a liberal. I personally know of at least one HIGHLY conservative individual by their personal beliefs who considers themself

to be a Democrat because they don't believe in legislating their personal beliefs onto others.

Never mind the MANY mid-stream Democrats who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

That you want to broad-brush everything simply shows a lack of willingness to look at your own statements.

Thats a funny statement! Democrats do Nothing But legislate their personal beliefs onto others!

[pimpdave]

That's a funny statement! Republicans do Nothing But steal everyone's money and slaughter people who point that out!

[GTE]

Another answer to your initial question would be 4. They were required by regulations enacted by democrats with pressure from their union masters to only use union labor to change the lightbulb, so (1) union supervisor, (1) union lightbulb changer, (1) union ladder holder and (1) union safety manager to make sure the union ladder holder was correctly holding the ladder. In many cases you could add another union member on standby just in case someone needed to go get coffee & donuts.

[GTE]

That's a funny statement! Republicans do Nothing But steal everyone's money and slaughter people who point that out!

Maybe you could include an example?

Hugo is that you??? are you wearing your red shirt today? thought so.

[Woodruff]

I love how some people still have some strange delusion that democrats aren't the opposite of conservatives.

They are not. Nor is "Republican" a synonym for "conservative".

Never said that.

I love how some people still have some strange delusion that democrats aren't the opposite of conservatives.

Your statement strains the very fabric of logic.

Democrats are, by the general platform, in all ways, socially, politically and economically, not conservative in their ideals.

A Democrat is not at all necessarily a liberal. I personally know of at least one HIGHLY conservative individual by their personal beliefs who considers themself

to be a Democrat because they don't believe in legislating their personal beliefs onto others.

Never mind the MANY mid-stream Democrats who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

That you want to broad-brush everything simply shows a lack of willingness to look at your own statements.

Thats a funny statement! Democrats do Nothing But legislate their personal beliefs onto others!

For instance, on abortion, Democrats are clearly the ones attempting to legislate. Do you ever think through the stupid things you say?

[GTE]

Wasn't it the Democrats who pushed their belief that allowing someone to kill a child because it was an inconvenience would be a good thing? now go and read your last sentence.... get a clue.

The major difference i see in conservative/liberal(oops sorry, they call themselves Progressive now. haha)
Conservatives believe in Personal Responsibility and Libs think everyones a victim and just need hugs, no judgements. (poor baby its not your fault.)

[Mr_Adams]

So you believe that the tyranny of the majority is the proper way to rule our nation?

Absolutely not. If you follow my post to it's logical conclusion, the government wouldn't enact enough power to be anywhere near tyranny.

In our area, I know many, many very ardent conservatives who have been listening to NPR because they got so fed up with Fox, Christian radio "news", etc. They do NOT agree with my politics, but we all want decent information. NPR has provided that. THAT is, I maintain the primary reason NPR was targeted... because they have been a bit "too successful".

.. AND that is why there is now even more of a push to "open the market" in radio and other media outlets.

Then they should have NO problem securing their own funding? Nobody is arguing that they don't have a substantial audience. I do listen to the station when I happen to find it from to time to time. It just doesn't need government help. If it's that successful, then they need to work on marketing to specific sponsors.

[PLAYER57832]

Thats a funny statement! Democrats do Nothing But legislate their personal beliefs onto others!

OH, so it is Democrats who want to heavily limit when a woman can have an abortion?
Its Democrats who think companies should be able to buy as much campaign advertising as they want in the name of "free speech"? Its Democrats who think its perfectly OK for me to buy a house only to have it ruined by drilling/ mining, etc and that I have no right to expect any kind of compensation because I did not own the mineral rights? (note almost NO ONE in the east owns their mineral rights). Its DEMOCRATS who think kids education funding should be cut so wealthy individuals and corporations can save on THEIR taxes..

[PLAYER57832]

So you believe that the tyranny of the majority is the proper way to rule our nation?

Absolutely not. If you follow my post to it's logical conclusion, the government wouldn't enact enough power to be anywhere near tyranny.

Not the government, no. You seem to have missed his point.

In our area, I know many, many very ardent conservatives who have been listening to NPR because they got so fed up with Fox, Christian radio "news", etc. They do NOT agree with my politics, but we all want decent information. NPR has provided that. THAT is, I maintain the primary reason NPR was targeted... because they have been a bit "too successful".

.. AND that is why there is now even more of a push to "open the market" in radio and other media outlets.

Then they should have NO problem securing their own funding? Nobody is arguing that they don't have a substantial audience. I do listen to the station when I happen to find it from to time to time. It just doesn't need government help. If it's that successful, then they need to work on marketing to specific sponsors.[/quote]
You miss the point. It doesn't matter if NPR is popular or not. The right for legitimat, opposing alternatives needs to be protected.

[Mr_Adams]

OH, so it is Democrats who want to heavily limit when a woman can have an abortion?

Because abortion is murder. But that is a different topic all together. If you want to discuss abortion, take it to another thread.

Its Democrats who think companies should be able to buy as much campaign advertising as they want in the name of "free speech"?

Now you are talking about corporatism, not capitalism. This is what the tea party wants to end- a government in the hands of the corporations, without handing it over to the unions.

Its Democrats who think its perfectly OK for me to buy a house only to have it ruined by drilling/ mining, etc and that I have no right to expect any kind of compensation because I did not own the mineral rights?

The idea that you wouldn't own the rights to the minerals in your land is, again, corporatism. You own that land, nobody should be able to step on it without your permission. Nobody is arguing that here. go petition your reps. It is deffinitly something both sides should be able to come together on.

Its DEMOCRATS who think kids education funding should be cut so wealthy individuals and corporations can save on THEIR taxes..

Because spending 1/3 of our economy doesn't do crap for our education system.

[natty dread]

Wasn't it the Democrats who pushed their belief that allowing someone to kill a child because it was an inconvenience would be a good thing? now go and read your last sentence.... get a clue.

Do they teach illogical pseudo-thinking in the school you went to or are you self-educated?

Did you major in knee jerks or flag waving?

[Metsfanmax]

It's a major fallacy to suggest that doubling the amount we spend per student is wasted money if test scores don't go up. There are so many reasons.

[Mr_Adams]

It's a major fallacy to suggest that doubling the amount we spend per student is wasted money if test scores don't go up. There are so many reasons.

Name one? If the students test scores aren't going up, they aren't doing better in that subject. Don't give me the BS about some kids don't take tests well. There are plenty who DO, and even the ones who DON'T will still test better in subjects they know more about. as you can see, the test scores don't even budge. Don't try to marginalize the value of the numbers. If the tests serve no purpose, why do kids take them?

[GreecePwns]

It's a major fallacy to suggest that doubling the amount we spend per student is wasted money if test scores don't go up. There are so many reasons.

Name one? If the students test scores aren't going up, they aren't doing better in that subject. Don't give me the BS about some kids don't take tests well. There are plenty who DO, and even the ones who DON'T will still test better in subjects they know more about. as you can see, the test scores don't even budge. Don't try to marginalize the value of the numbers. If the tests serve no purpose, why do kids take them?

I'll give an example of why our kids are becoming dumb. It has nothing to do with money.

In New York we have what are called Regents exams for each subject. Now to prepare for the upcoming 2011 tests, a teacher will give the students the EXACT TESTS from, for example 1989 to 2009. In other words, they are not learning anything. They are learning how to take this Regents exam and how to master a format of a test. A good chunk of that money goes to paper and worse education. If they didn't make the test available to the public, teachers would teach their subject, not the test their job is based upon.

To strictly take money and correlate it to results leaves nothing to blame on those who administer the usage of that money.

[Mr_Adams]

I'm not excusing ANYBODY. I'm saying that the money does nothing to help the ability of the school. You know it, even if you want to talk around the point.

[Woodruff]

Wasn't it the Democrats who pushed their belief that allowing someone to kill a child because it was an inconvenience would be a good thing? now go and read your last sentence.... get a clue.

You state that this legislation "allowed" something to happen...it did not REQUIRE that it happen. Therefore, it absolutely is not an example of "legislating your beliefs on someone else".

Conservatives believe in Personal Responsibility and Libs think everyones a victim and just need hugs, no judgements. (poor baby its not your fault.)

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility? You mean like:
When a female family member gets pregnant out of wedlock, ship her off to another area of the country to hide her and avoid the embarrassment.
When a business fails because of poor business practices because of the CEO, yet the CEO makes millions in a golden parachute deal.
How about allowing nations to govern themselves?
Yeah, you conservatives are all about personal responsibility alright.

[Woodruff]

So you believe that the tyranny of the majority is the proper way to rule our nation?

Absolutely not. If you follow my post to it's logical conclusion, the government wouldn't enact enough power to be anywhere near tyranny.

Follow your post? You managed to eliminate your post from the quoting. I presume that is because what was quoted goes directly against your claim here (which it does, by the way...good move on your part).

[Woodruff]

OH, so it is Democrats who want to heavily limit when a woman can have an abortion?

Because abortion is murder.

No, it absolutely is not. Anyone who claims that it is murder is quite frankly just willfully and intentionally stupid.

Its Democrats who think companies should be able to buy as much campaign advertising as they want in the name of "free speech"?

Now you are talking about corporatism, not capitalism. This is what the tea party wants to end- a government in the hands of the corporations, without handing it over to the unions.

By deregulating corporations? You think that will get the corporations out of the government? So when will the Tea Party membership of legislators be fighting against the idea that corporations should be treated as "persons" for the purposes of donating to campaigns? I haven't heard that plank in their campaign much. We are already a corporatocracy, quite honestly. It's just a matter of whether we will ever pull ourselves out if it or not. The Tea Party doesn't give me much hope in that direction, any longer.

[Woodruff]

It's a major fallacy to suggest that doubling the amount we spend per student is wasted money if test scores don't go up. There are so many reasons.

Name one?

Easy...the whole idea that flat test scores are the way to properly measure an educational system is ludicrous on the face of it. Quite honestly, it astounds me that ANYONE thinks that's a smart way to try to figure it out.

If the students test scores aren't going up, they aren't doing better in that subject.

If the students' test scores aren't going up, then the teacher isn't taking the proper amount of time in teaching the test to the students. The teacher should teach the test more, instead of teaching the kids to think and learn and actually understand what they're doing.

If the tests serve no purpose, why do kids take them?

Tests do serve a purpose, when used as a proper measuring tool by a teacher for his/her classroom. However, as they are enacted by mandate of law, there is only very minor use for them.

I'm not excusing ANYBODY. I'm saying that the money does nothing to help the ability of the school. You know it, even if you want to talk around the point.

Discussing how teaching of the tests has become the norm instead of actual learning is NOT AT ALL "talking around the point". It IS the point.

[Mr_Adams]

So you believe that the tyranny of the majority is the proper way to rule our nation?

Absolutely not. If you follow my post to it's logical conclusion, the government wouldn't enact enough power to be anywhere near tyranny.

Follow your post? You managed to eliminate your post from the quoting. I presume that is because what was quoted goes directly against your claim here (which it does, by the way...good move on your part).

Post you quoted from:

I personally know of at least one HIGHLY conservative individual by their personal beliefs who considers themself to be a Democrat because they don't believe in legislating their personal beliefs onto others.

Like gun control, health care mandates, and taxpayer funding of radio programs, just to list a few recent examples.

That you believe that taxpayer funding of NPR equates to "legislating personal beliefs onto others" simply shows me that you're too far gone to honestly discuss the issue.

Anything anybody who pays taxes in this country doesn't approve of the government doing, that the government then does, is forcing people to FUND something they don't want. There will always be a small percent that just has to put up with it, but a fairly large portion of Americans do NOT approve of government subsidized broadcasting, so it shouldn't be done. Ya, that means I DON'T think we should be in two wars, I don't think the federal government should be doing most of what it does. "That which governs best, governs least" mentality that you disagree with. If you would like to discuss it further, I would happily have a conversation. To take one consideration and draw a conclusion shows me that you aren't worth trying to have an honest discussion with.

Portion you quoted:

There will always be a small percent that just has to put up with it, but a fairly large portion of Americans do NOT approve of government subsidized broadcasting, so it shouldn't be done.

Now, if you want to look back, you will see that in the system I describe, there isn't enough government to be tyrannical, and the things the government DOES do are upheld by the majority. That's a representative democracy for you.

[Woodruff]

Now, if you want to look back, you will see that in the system I describe, there isn't enough government to be tyrannical, and the things the government DOES do are upheld by the majority. That's a representative democracy for you.

"If the majority doesn't want it, the government shouldn't do it" IS in fact tyranny by the majority. In fact a democracy (including a democratic republic) that contains no checks/balances for the minority IS in fact tyranny by the majority.

[Mr_Adams]

Its Democrats who think companies should be able to buy as much campaign advertising as they want in the name of "free speech"?

Now you are talking about corporatism, not capitalism. This is what the tea party wants to end- a government in the hands of the corporations, without handing it over to the unions.

By deregulating corporations? You think that will get the corporations out of the government? So when will the Tea Party membership of legislators be fighting against the idea that corporations should be treated as "persons" for the purposes of donating to campaigns? I haven't heard that plank in their campaign much. We are already a corporatocracy, quite honestly. It's just a matter of whether we will ever pull ourselves out if it or not. The Tea Party doesn't give me much hope in that direction, any longer.

Whether a politician is purchased by Walmart or your union, Woodruff, I don't care. neither one should exist. Yet they do. The tea party no longer "gives hope in that direction" because the media has lead many people to view it as a republican puppet show, and so it has partially become one.

[Mr_Adams]

Now, if you want to look back, you will see that in the system I describe, there isn't enough government to be tyrannical, and the things the government DOES do are upheld by the majority. That's a representative democracy for you.

"If the majority doesn't want it, the government shouldn't do it" IS in fact tyranny by the majority. In fact a democracy (including a democratic republic) that contains no checks/balances for the minority IS in fact tyranny by the majority.

A government without the power to effect people's lives isn't what one would call a tyranny, surely you are intentionally overlooking this. Or maybe you are SO entrenched in this idea of big government, that you can't imagine a government that small. Perhaps, in your mind, "small government"=anarchy. Maybe worse, like Salem witch trials.

[Woodruff]

Its Democrats who think companies should be able to buy as much campaign advertising as they want in the name of "free speech"?

Now you are talking about corporatism, not capitalism. This is what the tea party wants to end- a government in the hands of the corporations, without handing it over to the unions.

By deregulating corporations? You think that will get the corporations out of the government? So when will the Tea Party membership of legislators be fighting against the idea that corporations should be treated as "persons" for the purposes of donating to campaigns? I haven't heard that plank in their campaign much. We are already a corporatocracy, quite honestly. It's just a matter of whether we will ever pull ourselves out if it or not. The Tea Party doesn't give me much hope in that direction, any longer.

Whether a politician is purchased by Walmart or your union, Woodruff, I don't care. neither one should exist. Yet they do. The tea party no longer "gives hope in that direction" because the media has lead many people to view it as a republican puppet show, and so it has partially become one.

Does the Tea Party favor deregulations of corporations or not? Last I heard, it did.
Also, you didn't answer my question regarding the "personhood" of corporations and donating to campaigns. Were you going to?

Blaming the media for what the Tea Party has become is ludicrous. It has simply "become" what it always was...the mask is starting to be pulled aside.