Moderator: Community Team
Mr_Adams wrote:I love how some people still have some strange delusion that democrats aren't the opposite of conservatives.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:I love how some people still have some strange delusion that democrats aren't the opposite of conservatives.
There are only two viewpoints right?
jonesthecurl wrote:What's this obsession with "light" bulbs anyway? what's wrong with full-fat bulbs?
Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote: 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.
Symmetry wrote:or simply waiting for Obama to do something and then saying how bad it is.
Woodruff wrote:Symmetry wrote:or simply waiting for Obama to do something and then saying how bad it is.
This IS the new Republican/Tea Party (not conservative) strategy. John Boehner disgusts me.
radiojake wrote:People have to stop thinking in binary opposites. Just because the media likes to set up the terms of public debate in binary opposites, doesn't mean that we should all fall into that trap.
The small scope of US politics is laughable and the fact that the people within the US tend to think that the ends of this small scope results in 'opposites' is hilarious and highlights how narrow-minded many Americans are (not saying everyone, but the resorting to the Democrat/Republican binary as if they are on the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum tends to suggest this)
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Army of GOD wrote:I'm not a liberal, a conservative, a Democrat or Republican.
I just don't give a f*ck.
Woodruff wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote: 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.
Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote: 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.
Symmetry wrote:Woodruff wrote:Symmetry wrote:or simply waiting for Obama to do something and then saying how bad it is.
This IS the new Republican/Tea Party (not conservative) strategy. John Boehner disgusts me.
Fair point- I didn't really emphasise enough that I do think there are exceptions, and that I was mainly talking about the more vocal and powerful elements of modern day conservatism in the US.
I read a fair number of conservative points of view because of my addiction to Andrew Sullivan's blog. Whenever I post them here I'm politely informed that they aren't real conservatives.
Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote: 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.
radiojake wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote: 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.
Now I´m not too familiar with public radio in the States, but are you talking about taking away the funding to public, community radio? Should the only radio on the air be by those with the money to pay for a broadcasting license?
Mr_Adams wrote: There you go, it takes a lot of money to get your voice heard on radio. that's another part of the problem. Another thing the federal government shouldn't be aloud to do is require a license to broadcast. maybe state governments should have that power, but not the fed. they have their sticky little fingers in every nook and cranny. If it didn't cost millions to secure broadcasting licenses, you could have local talk shows sponsored by local small businesses. What a novel idea?
Which will subsequently be bought out by Clear Channel. Because 1200 radio stations wasn't enough.Mr_Adams wrote:radiojake wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote:Mr_Adams wrote: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.
Now I´m not too familiar with public radio in the States, but are you talking about taking away the funding to public, community radio? Should the only radio on the air be by those with the money to pay for a broadcasting license?
There you go, it takes a lot of money to get your voice heard on radio. that's another part of the problem. Another thing the federal government shouldn't be aloud to do is require a license to broadcast. maybe state governments should have that power, but not the fed. they have their sticky little fingers in every nook and cranny. If it didn't cost millions to secure broadcasting licenses, you could have local talk shows sponsored by local small businesses. What a novel idea?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:Ugh. We had a perfectly good argument until that nonseniscal drivel.
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.PLAYER57832 wrote:GreecePwns wrote: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?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote:Mr_Adams wrote:Woodruff wrote: 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.
Mr_Adams wrote: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.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl, mookiemcgee