Conservatism

[Metsfanmax]

Woodruff, while it's true that not all conservatives are Republicans, it's true that very nearly all Republicans consider them conservative, so the Republican jokes are still within the purview of this topic.

[GreecePwns]

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

There are only two viewpoints right?

[radiojake]

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)

[notyou2]

None available. The republicans broke the custodian union, so there isn't anyone left to change the light bulb.

[Symmetry]

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

There are only two viewpoints right?

Modern day conservatism in the US does seem to believe this to be true. Whatever Obama or the Democrats do, they are the opposite. Exceptions seem to be increasingly rare, or ostracised.

I think this is pretty telling:

"Sixty-three percent of Republicans disapprove of Obama's handling of Libya, to 27 percent who approve. Seventy-six percent of Tea Party "supporters" disapprove of Obama's handling of it. But 73 percent of Tea Partiers and 78 percent of Republicans support the [no-fly zone] -- they're by far the biggest supporters of the strategy."

Slate

A lack of credible leadership seems to be hurting modern conservatism. Increasingly, it looks like they are returning to originalism and historical slogans to oppose change, or simply waiting for Obama to do something and then saying how bad it is.

[jonesthecurl]

What's this obsession with "light" bulbs anyway? what's wrong with full-fat bulbs?

[Symmetry]

What's this obsession with "light" bulbs anyway? what's wrong with full-fat bulbs?

You've gotten them confused with lite-bulbs, which have all the taste, but non of the fat.

[Woodruff]

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.

[Woodruff]

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.

[Symmetry]

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.

[GreecePwns]

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)

Everyone else is just a socialist anyway, so why bother?

[Army of GOD]

I'm not a liberal, a conservative, a Democrat or Republican.



I just don't give a f*ck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w_yud_rPE8

[Woodruff]

I'm not a liberal, a conservative, a Democrat or Republican.
I just don't give a f*ck.

The only thing that makes you is an idiot.

[Mr_Adams]

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]

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?

[PLAYER57832]

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.

I believe Buckley would be considered a "flaming liberal" by many today

[PLAYER57832]

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.

That sounds nice, but what it really means is that we will be paying far more to for profit corporations to do what the government now does. And, as radiojake pointed out, only the most prominent, popular voices will be heard any more. That is not democracy.

[Mr_Adams]

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?

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?

[PLAYER57832]

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?

First, regulating radio channels is a practical matter... the same way we have stop signs and other traffic rules on roads. If the channels were not regulated, then it would be a "whoever has the most powerful receiver" competition. You would NOT see multiple stations by small businesses, you would see only the biggest and most powerful station essentially "drowning out" the others.

Per the fees -- well, again, the past few decades have seen the move to "we have to make everything profitable".

BUT, this is a very old problem. Do you know, for example, that one reason there is a reduced rate for mailng periodicals through the post office is because it was recognized that having much charge, some argued any charge, would limit people's access to information. Without free access to information, there IS NO Democracy (or republic).

This is about freedom of information and ensuring that everyone has access to multiple sides of every question.

[GreecePwns]

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?

Which will subsequently be bought out by Clear Channel. Because 1200 radio stations wasn't enough.

[PLAYER57832]

In truth, if you put it all together, it gets pretty terrifying.

1. Cut funding to education
2. Increase cost, limit subsidies to outside news information sources
3. Selectively allow certain groups to expand, (all in the name of "popularity" and "cost")
4. Force inclusion of non-accepted/disproven ideas (young earth, climate change disputers, etc.) and extreme conservative viewpoints while limiting or actually disallowing other ideas (nothing that might even hint that communism is anything but purely bad, little about dangers of unrestricted competition in business, etc.)
5. Encourage the populace to believe that anything other than the above is an attempt to "curtail their thinking" or to distort the truth, .. not the reverse.
6. Be sure that finding alternate sources is even more difficult -- discourage true consideration and research of idea not part of the conservative agenda, with just enough exceptions to keep it all believable.
7. Big Brother is in charge.
"watch this screen, you will be happy.. do not bother to question, you are happy, only other people are unhappy/cause problems"..


NOTE -- we are currently in steps 4-5.

[GreecePwns]

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

[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?

[GreecePwns]

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.

Let's talk about the subject at hand. If we allowed states to issue licenses instead of the federal government, what would that change? Clear Channel will still own 1200 stations (or whatever number its at now) and Viacom will own the rest of the big ones. There are only 5 companies that dictate over 95 percent of the market share of media. Taking federal government out will just exacerbate that problem, Mr_Adams. There needs to be effective way to take the power out of the big media companies' hands.

[Woodruff]

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.

Of course it is. But that is not in any way the same thing as "legislating personal beliefs onto others" and I really don't see how you equate the two.

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.

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