<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem is the show won't last. If you'll notice, the conservative talk show hosts tend to be very, erm, "passionate" about the issue at hand, because its either right or its wrong (which is a big part of conservatism, assuming I spelled that right). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because that's the host's opinion. They aren't trying to indoctrinate you, they're just saying what they feel about the issue, like Spooge said, there's alot of contrasting and comparing, and there's plenty of individuals who call in and share their opinion. Although, many conservatives have pretty firm stances on things.
Anyone know where I can find out if I'm liberal or conservative? (heh, some of them cool quiz things, those are cool).
Franken sounds funny, if not idealistically perfect...but then again the moderate debate in this thread doesn't present any actual issues the two sides would differ on.
(I get all my makeshift news from the Daily Show (because actual news networks try scare tactic reporting far to much for me...I hear Canada doesn't have it quite as much, but Canada's not exciting, and if I want cold weather, I'm going for the absolutes like Russia - zdrastvootye, comradeiy (I have no idea how to transiterated the letter that looks like bl properly <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
[note that this board does not, but should, support cyrillic - pffffft]
Wow, that shot to a tangent pretty quick. So...how 'bout helping me find out if I'm liberal, conservative or neutral?
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Sorry Coil. That test is a joke. And if it wasn't it's very disconcerting that they'd be using questions such as:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You see, a strong Lefty would believe that trans-national corporations are out to take as much from "humanity" as they can. Therefore, corporations are bad. But the strongest Righty believes that these corporations are both helping and improving humanity. The question itself is flawed and therefore, a joke.
I recommend NOT using this test as a measure of your ideology.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Here's a few explainations from Thomas Jefferson to help define some differences:
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73
"To me... it appears that there have been differences of opinion and party differences, from the first establishment of government to the present day, and on the same question which now divides our own country; that these will continue through all future time; that every one takes his side in favor of the many, or of the few, according to his constitution, and the circumstances in which he is placed... that as we judge between the Claudii and the Gracchi, the Wentworths and the Hampdens of past ages, so of those among us whose names may happen to be remembered for awhile, the next generations will judge favorably or unfavorably according to the complexion of individual minds and the side they shall themselves have taken; that nothing new can be added to what has been said by others and will be said in every age in support of the conflicting opinions on government; and that wisdom and duty dictate an humble resignation to the verdict of our future peers." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:283
"Wherever there are men, there will be parties; and wherever there are free men they will make themselves heard. Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many. These are the Whigs and Tories of nature. These mutual jealousies produce mutual security; and while the laws shall be obeyed, all will be safe. He alone is your enemy who disobeys them." --Thomas Jefferson: Misc. Notes, 1801? FE 8:1
"Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317
Plenty more of Jefferson's great thoughts <a href='http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm' target='_blank'>in this link.</a>
'Liberal' in the basic political sense describes a 'tolerant' political point of view that tries to permit the highest possible amount of differing opinions to find a place inside a society. Economically, the liberal movement, which originates in the semi-wealthy citizenship of the industrialization, has always been a supporter of an at worst only slightly controlled capitalism. Looking at the big picture, that's so close to the middle of the global political spectrum that it's often impossible to discern between 'left' and 'right' - the German 'liberal' party, for example, is generally considered economically right.
Left of liberalism, there's still a number of perfectly acceptable differing political notions, such as social democratism, which originates from the moderate majority of the workership of the industrialization and differs from liberalism in so far that it tries for a strongly socially influenced capitalism, the left-libertarian movements that had their big advent in the sixties and which are nowadays organized in the various 'Green' parties, and so on into the communistic movements.
The US may have a political scene with a heavyly 'right' overweight, but outside it, liberalism is just not left.
(Sorry for the derail, but hey, it's a pet peeve of mine.)
Spooge, I agree with you that some of the questions of the test tend to lean to one side of the picture, but seeing that the test tries to rate the testeds stance towards typical statements of each political side, that's hardly surprising. Did you take it to the end? I for mine got a <a href='http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=printable_graph&X=-7.25&Y=-8.26' target='_blank'>result</a> acceptably close to my percieved position.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited April 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Apr 1 2004, 09:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Apr 1 2004, 09:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Spooge, I agree with you that some of the questions of the test tend to lean to one side of the picture, but seeing that the test tries to rate the testeds stance towards typical statements of each political side, that's hardly surprising. Did you take it to the end? I for mine got a result acceptably close to my percieved position. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I took the test all the way through and my result was near to my positions but the questions did not accurately portray my point of view. Too many of the questions didn't give me a possiblity for answering my position.
Examples:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe people are divided by class or nationality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The rich are too highly taxed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Define "rich".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here I'm forced to disagree because of the word "right". I don't believe anyone has a "right" to medical care. Change that word to "access" and I can decide.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Mislead about what?
Words have meaning and these questions are worded poorly. That's why I won't support this test.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I took the test all the way through and my result was near to my positions but the questions did not accurately portray my point of view. Too many of the questions didn't give me a possiblity for answering my position.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said, 'archetypical statements'. Most of these are, as you might've noticed, derived from popular quotes or general one-line quips. I went for the 'milder' choices on a fair number of occasions due to dubious wording as well, but that's simply part of the test - it doesn't try to portray your own opinion, but your stance towards a number of <i>different</i> opinions.
Really, I can't see why "that test is a joke" when it does indeed manage to hit your political opinion sufficiently close, although not in a way you would've choosen.
Much as I like Al Franken, he doesn't have a real rhythm yet, and I wasn’t too thrilled that Michael Moore was his first ‘big’ guest.— while his intentions may have originally been noble, he’s gotten too caught up in grandstanding and exaggerating for my tastes.
Ed Schultz (not on the station yet, but part of the stream, for some reason) was actually very listenable—eerily close to Rush, but I’ve been interested to hear him since Esquire did a piece on him a few months ago.
I listened to Janeane Garafolo for a bit, mostly because David Chappelle and Atrios were going to be on. While she usually drives me up a wall, I could tolerate her for the most part and she made some good points, though predictably , she did get obnoxiously militant a few times.
Overall, it has potential, but it definitely needs some tweaking and ironing.
As far as Bill O’Reilly goes, I listen to him occasionally when I’m driving in my car during his timeslot, and he usually irritates me pretty quickly. While I occasionally agree with him, he whines way . . . too . . . much. Honestly, for a man who makes his living attacking people, he really has to drop his whole woe-is-me, victimized ‘humble servant’ routine anytime someone says something negative about him. For a man who tries so hard to come off as a tough scrapper, he’s really got to learn how to deal with it better.
He’s also always trying to take the high road and the low road at once—months ago, as he was ‘sadly’ slamming Franken as a ‘smear merchant’, he mentioned how he doesn’t stoop to that level, and you’d never hear Franken mentioned on the show again. Yet almost every time I listen, there’s at least one knock on ‘Stewart Smalley’. It doesn’t surprise me, because that man can rationalize anything. After calling a judge in Florida ‘loony’, a caller reminded him that he claims that he isn’t a name caller. O’Reilly responded by saying, ‘The wasn’t a name. It was a <i>descriptive adjective</i>’. And he was <b>serious</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin-OttoDestruct+Mar 31 2004, 10:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (OttoDestruct @ Mar 31 2004, 10:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just cant wait for the day Lewis Black gets his own show / segment. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "If it weren't for my horse..."
I just found out why Liberal talk radio never really lasts. Apparently, people who listen to Liberal radio are less likely to buy the products advertised, the sponsors pull their funding, and the show goes plop. That's weird. I'd like to know what makes Liberal radio listeners less likely to buy advertised products. Weird, weird, weird.
Just had to mention that Rush Limbaugh is a crackhead.
And as to why the products of companies that advertise on liberal radio don't sell, it could be that many liberals disagree with the policies of corporations such as WalMart or other companies who make huge profits by paying employees little so they are able to cut prices on products. Liberals are much more likely to be willing to pay more to shop at Meijer (Large Midwest chain) or some other store because they support unions and all that stuff, and they are not going to change their ways because of some radio advertisement.
Not many kids born into liberal families become conservative.
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
Franken is an outstanding writer, but not a terribly good performer. Just look at SNL - many of the skits he wrote were excellent. However, many of the skits he wrote *and* performed were only decent, and sometimes rather mediocre.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
Anyone who docs Rush IS a crackhead.
Let me explain the story,
Back when this whole matter blew up the painkiller Oxycontin was being prescribed rather readily. Doctors during the time misunderstood the power of it. (modern day morphism) after Rush's heart attack he was pescribed the drug (which technically only should of been given to cancer patients) likewise the drug is rather addictive, I was addicted to the drug for a short while and got ahold of a good amount. The problem here is not Rush's fault it's his doctor's for pescribing him basically synthetic morphine. You should be commending him on his ability to seek help and I wouldn't be surpised if down the road someone sued for prescribing the drug as much as they did.
Again, it's not Rush's fault for this whole matter it's his doctor's.
Right and its his doctor;s fault Rush had his maid illegally buy the drugs and lie about it.
Rush is a total "blowhard" about drugs and drug users. He has no sympathy for drug addicts that got addicted at an early age, drug users who got addicted while depressed, or drug users that are addicted against their own wishes. So why in the holy hell should anyone give him any sympathy for getting "accidently" addicted to the drug, then "accidently" spending boatloads of money on buying it illegally, then "accidently" lying about it all.
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Apr 2 2004, 06:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Apr 2 2004, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anyone who docs Rush IS a crackhead.
Let me explain the story,
Back when this whole matter blew up the painkiller Oxycontin was being prescribed rather readily. Doctors during the time misunderstood the power of it. (modern day morphism) after Rush's heart attack he was pescribed the drug (which technically only should of been given to cancer patients) likewise the drug is rather addictive, I was addicted to the drug for a short while and got ahold of a good amount. The problem here is not Rush's fault it's his doctor's for pescribing him basically synthetic morphine. You should be commending him on his ability to seek help and I wouldn't be surpised if down the road someone sued for prescribing the drug as much as they did.
Again, it's not Rush's fault for this whole matter it's his doctor's. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd like to point out that for both my appendix removal and wisdom teeth pulling I was prescribed Oxycotin, and I'm in no way addicted to any of them. I don't get how people can become addicted to drugs <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
When my appendix was removed they gave me a choice between morphine and oxycotin (though I wasn't really in much pain to begin with, it was an awesome 2 days out of school, got to read Timeline and Sphere <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). The morphine I found especially weak, maybe I'm just really weird..
I can now understand why people stopped taking penicillin and we've got super-viruses now. That stuff tastes horrible...<i>horrrrrible</i> (still took it all though - blech).
For the quiz thing, it put me in the middle-ish of the compass. (slightly left and libertarian...so...who am I supposed to vote for? heh. Which I guess make a little sense, since it's hard to offend me (if it happens at all, sometimes you get that joking offense stuff, 'cause it's funny <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
Not a big fan of Bush, not sure about Kerry...and don't trust that third, moderately high at 4%-ish of the vote, party.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited April 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Apr 2 2004, 08:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Apr 2 2004, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Right and its his doctor;s fault Rush had his maid illegally buy the drugs and lie about it.
Rush is a total "blowhard" about drugs and drug users. He has no sympathy for drug addicts that got addicted at an early age, drug users who got addicted while depressed, or drug users that are addicted against their own wishes. So why in the holy hell should anyone give him any sympathy for getting "accidently" addicted to the drug, then "accidently" spending boatloads of money on buying it illegally, then "accidently" lying about it all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Drug addiction plays no political parties. You would be surpised on how people act when they become addicted to a substance.
Theres science in the matter I could go on about how bad it **** with ones mind. You get the dillusions of yourself still in pain along with the chemical addiction.
Reminder to you that not all people respond the same to medication, and that some people become addicted more then others, in his case they prescribed too much.
If your given morphine just a little, its benefitial, but what they gave Rush was much too much and they gave it to him by himself. Just handed it over.
There is a difference between a drug user and an painkiller addict, I know ordinary people who come out of a hospital can become addicted to this. Once they don't get their fix, their brain starts to think it's in pain again.
Yes it was accidental, along with that anything he did (such as buying boatloads of it illegally) would mean he was mentally incomp.
Rush is still someone to be respected, if not this adds to his moral character and what he said in regards to drug and drug "users" is still good advice. Doctors triggered Rush's addiction, not a dealer or friend or pusher.
UZi, I could take your post a lot more seriously if it weren't exactly the sort of thing Rush ridicules. The problem is not that you're wrong, but that Rush is a clear cut hypocrite. After blowing hot air about personal responsibility and the character to do the right thing in difficult situations and how degenerate drug addicts are, he let himself get turned into one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes it was accidental, along with that anything he did (such as buying boatloads of it illegally) would mean he was mentally incomp. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, this is not something the law recognizes. You don't get a free pass just because you need a fix.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nope. Most of these radio shows are about issues. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, the issue of how liberals are totally wrogn about all the issues. You'd have to be pretty obtuse not to get that the whole point of these shows, liberal and conservative, is to spin issues a certain away and repeat ad nasuem coordinated spin points (ever wonder why the talk show hosts focus on almost the same issues in the same way, using the same terms and making the same sorts of accusations, sometimes just in slightly different language?). Callers are simply props to this end.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know Al Gore tried to throw out the absentee votes :|
He didn't want soldiers to have a voice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, repeating a canned spin point straight off all the conservative is definately not a sign of dogmatism...
Please, tell me again how Kerry voted 350 times to increase taxes, or gut intelligence funding? If you think either of these are even close to being honest assesments of the facts, then you should really take a long hard look at where your opinions come from.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Anne Coulter bit on the Franken show was funny.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That bit was painfully, painfully bad, right from the get go.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there's woman after Franken. Whoa. Somebody needs a Prozac. For someone who says they've been doing a radio show for 10+ years, she's got some weak radio skills. Can't seem to hold a conversation with caller either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://airamericaradio.com/www/pub/prg4about.htm' target='_blank'>Just the way she tips her head to one side in this photo ticks me off.</a>
Though let's be fair: her on-air demeanor is almost exactly like Bob Grant and Michael Savage (she could pretty much be Savage's little sister for all I know, they sound so much alike aside from politics). I think people who aren't used to talk radio in general will find the sorts of behavior these people have a bit odd, but they are pretty much par for the course on talk radio, really.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited April 2004
Rhodes is a hypocrite. I will tell you why.
"I supported the first Gulf War." "It helped alot of people." Rhodes said.
go back to 1990's
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL." <----Common liberal chant.
Rhodes today "This war was about oil."
Same stupid liberal rhetoric.
See Apos, I work in the medical field, If you study history you would know about Morphism, alot of good people got addicted to morphine after the Civil War and did things they had no real control over. Same thing applied to Rush. Still what Rush said in regards to drug control still is good advice? No?
Painkiller addiction is not something you blame a person for. What the kooks at AAR are busting Rush on...is in fact, weak, and shows immaturity. They are so far to the left I doubt they have a right hand. Nader himself doesn't like these guys.
Like I said, He had no control over what happend...he is not a doctor, not even the doctors knew the power of Oxycontin "Not like they try it on themselves." a few friends said they should of had a lawsuit placed on the companies who made the drug or those doctors who pescribed it.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-UZi+Apr 4 2004, 01:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Apr 4 2004, 01:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "I supported the first Gulf War." "It helped alot of people." Rhodes said.
"This war was about oil." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, she said those things. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->go back to 1990's
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL." <----Common liberal chant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Find me a quote where *she* said that, and I'll give you that she's a hypocrite.
Frankly, most of the world is hypocritical, liberal and conservative both. I don't pretend that Air America is all that much better than your average right-wing radio broadcast, but at least the playing field finally has two teams on it.
I'm not a big fan of Rhodes, myself. She was going off today about the electronic voting machines, how there's no way to do a recount and how it's a "black box" technology too easily tampered with. She took a caller who offered an opposing viewpoint: that electronic voting machines for the first time offered the ability to use what's called "instant runoff voting." * Rather than listen to the caller and perhaps discuss the potential merits of IRV, Rhodes simply plowed over her with the same thing she'd just said - that it wasn't about that, it was about black-box voting and the fact that there's no way to do a recount, etc.
It doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative; a person who is so caught up in their own rhetoric that they can't even listen to what someone else might say on the subject is not someone I care to listen to. ____
<i>* Instant runoff voting: in a nutshell, you get to "rank" all the candidates you support. In the event that your #1 choice loses the race, your vote is recounted as a vote for your #2 choice, and so on. This is good because one of the major complaints of the 2-party system is that a vote for a 3rd party is a "throw away" vote - or worse, a vote for the opposition. In an election that used instant runoff voting, I could vote for a 3rd party candidate with the confidence that if that candidate loses, my vote is not "wasted" and I can still help the mainstream candidate I favor to get elected. Some state and local elections already use this system (e.g. San Francisco and Vermont). For more information, <a href='http://www.instantrunoff.com/' target='_blank'>clicky</a>.</i>
id just like to say, that politics in general **** me off, everyone trying to out do each other, they spend more time doing that than getting much done
"This war was about oil." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, she said those things. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->go back to 1990's
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL." <----Common liberal chant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Find me a quote where *she* said that, and I'll give you that she's a hypocrite.
Frankly, most of the world is hypocritical, liberal and conservative both. I don't pretend that Air America is all that much better than your average right-wing radio broadcast, but at least the playing field finally has two teams on it.
I'm not a big fan of Rhodes, myself. She was going off today about the electronic voting machines, how there's no way to do a recount and how it's a "black box" technology too easily tampered with. She took a caller who offered an opposing viewpoint: that electronic voting machines for the first time offered the ability to use what's called "instant runoff voting." * Rather than listen to the caller and perhaps discuss the potential merits of IRV, Rhodes simply plowed over her with the same thing she'd just said - that it wasn't about that, it was about black-box voting and the fact that there's no way to do a recount, etc.
It doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative; a person who is so caught up in their own rhetoric that they can't even listen to what someone else might say on the subject is not someone I care to listen to. ____
<i>* Instant runoff voting: in a nutshell, you get to "rank" all the candidates you support. In the event that your #1 choice loses the race, your vote is recounted as a vote for your #2 choice, and so on. This is good because one of the major complaints of the 2-party system is that a vote for a 3rd party is a "throw away" vote - or worse, a vote for the opposition. In an election that used instant runoff voting, I could vote for a 3rd party candidate with the confidence that if that candidate loses, my vote is not "wasted" and I can still help the mainstream candidate I favor to get elected. Some state and local elections already use this system (e.g. San Francisco and Vermont). For more information, <a href='http://www.instantrunoff.com/' target='_blank'>clicky</a>.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First radio broadcast.
Pay attention coil, im sure im she will say it again
She is probley **** because San Fran voters can't throw ballot boxes into the bay or have them wind up hidden.. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In any case, AAR will last maybe half a year to a year at max. Id wish it survive, but they picked some of the stupidest people. Notice, not one of them has the balls to comend Bush on anything.
Unless some European countries invests in them, HAHA....oh...thats a good laugh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See Apos, I work in the medical field, If you study history you would know about Morphism, alot of good people got addicted to morphine after the Civil War and did things they had no real control over.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the part where Rush starts whining about how nobody will stand up and take responsibility for anything: just blame everyone else for your problems.
People on morphine do have control over what they do. Certainly they have as much or more control than a crack addict or an alcoholic. If you are prepared to excuse someone who abuses painkillers, why not excuse everyone? Drug addiction IS pretty horrible, and people really are driven to behavior they wouldn't ordinarily do. But why does Rush get a free pass when there are a million other drug sob stories to whom his advice is more jail time, throw away the key?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Same thing applied to Rush. Still what Rush said in regards to drug control still is good advice? No?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, not really. And Rush is case in point of double standards: harsh as hell until you have to face the reality of what getting and being addicted to something is like. Rush's answer to drug addicts is, apparently, only applicable when it's someone else who is the addict.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are so far to the left I doubt they have a right hand. Nader himself doesn't like these guys.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, convince me more that you are not deluded parrot by repeating spin points verbatim.
You know what'd be nice? A nice Moderate Talk Radio Station. You know, somthing that isn't like, "BOMB THOSE DIRTY TOWEL HEADS" or "War is murder, save the rainforest, heh"
How about somthing like real life, example: "People suck, some of them deserve to die... But for gods sake, don't hate a whole race for a couple of people!!!"
I just stopped listening to radio and watching News because all of it is biased or just put out to get ratings. Another example: I found out that Brittany Spears was maried to some guy for about 10hrs and it was all over th enews a couple months back) who cares? (Found that out today)
Anyway, a moderate news system of any type would be nice.
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-Caboose+Apr 6 2004, 03:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Caboose @ Apr 6 2004, 03:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know what'd be nice? A nice Moderate Talk Radio Station. You know, somthing that isn't like, "BOMB THOSE DIRTY TOWED HEADS" or "War is murder, save the rainforest, heh" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Sure, they do a lot of making fun of the news, but in the last two years they've had a very large number of political figures from both the right and the left come on the show, and Jon always gives people the opportunity to express their views without cutting them off (he cracks jokes at them, but they're obvious, goofy jokes, not subtle and malicious ones). While it's not purist political commentary, it's definitely good comedy, and that alone is good enough for me.
You might also listen to Talk of the Nation on NPR. It's a call-in show that is generally very open-minded and moderate. They have guests from both sides of the political spectrum, give each the opportunity to talk, but don't let them get into childish ranting or bickering. Also, because it's NPR, there isn't any corporate pandering or advertising.
Comments
John and Ken (on KFI), however, I do listen to. Mostly to hear them chew out callers and various other people.
Speaking of KFI, everyone go listen to the web stream, Phil Hendrie is on!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because that's the host's opinion. They aren't trying to indoctrinate you, they're just saying what they feel about the issue, like Spooge said, there's alot of contrasting and comparing, and there's plenty of individuals who call in and share their opinion. Although, many conservatives have pretty firm stances on things.
This has been tried before...failed miserablily. Won't be long until they are like NPR and taking government funds.
Al Gore can only blame his godamn self, why do they keep bringing it up?
You know Al Gore tried to throw out the absentee votes :|
He didn't want soldiers to have a voice.
Franken sounds funny, if not idealistically perfect...but then again the moderate debate in this thread doesn't present any actual issues the two sides would differ on.
(I get all my makeshift news from the Daily Show (because actual news networks try scare tactic reporting far to much for me...I hear Canada doesn't have it quite as much, but Canada's not exciting, and if I want cold weather, I'm going for the absolutes like Russia - zdrastvootye, comradeiy (I have no idea how to transiterated the letter that looks like bl properly <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
[note that this board does not, but should, support cyrillic - pffffft]
Wow, that shot to a tangent pretty quick. So...how 'bout helping me find out if I'm liberal, conservative or neutral?
Incidentally, appearing today on Franken's show will be Robert Reich and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Score!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You see, a strong Lefty would believe that trans-national corporations are out to take as much from "humanity" as they can. Therefore, corporations are bad. But the strongest Righty believes that these corporations are both helping and improving humanity. The question itself is flawed and therefore, a joke.
I recommend NOT using this test as a measure of your ideology.
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has been long enough tried and proved not to promote the good of the many, and that the other has not been fairly and sufficiently tried. Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73
"To me... it appears that there have been differences of opinion and party differences, from the first establishment of government to the present day, and on the same question which now divides our own country; that these will continue through all future time; that every one takes his side in favor of the many, or of the few, according to his constitution, and the circumstances in which he is placed... that as we judge between the Claudii and the Gracchi, the Wentworths and the Hampdens of past ages, so of those among us whose names may happen to be remembered for awhile, the next generations will judge favorably or unfavorably according to the complexion of individual minds and the side they shall themselves have taken; that nothing new can be added to what has been said by others and will be said in every age in support of the conflicting opinions on government; and that wisdom and duty dictate an humble resignation to the verdict of our future peers." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:283
"Wherever there are men, there will be parties; and wherever there are free men they will make themselves heard. Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many. These are the Whigs and Tories of nature. These mutual jealousies produce mutual security; and while the laws shall be obeyed, all will be safe. He alone is your enemy who disobeys them." --Thomas Jefferson: Misc. Notes, 1801? FE 8:1
"Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317
Plenty more of Jefferson's great thoughts <a href='http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm' target='_blank'>in this link.</a>
Erm... No. Absolutely not, coil.
'Liberal' in the basic political sense describes a 'tolerant' political point of view that tries to permit the highest possible amount of differing opinions to find a place inside a society. Economically, the liberal movement, which originates in the semi-wealthy citizenship of the industrialization, has always been a supporter of an at worst only slightly controlled capitalism.
Looking at the big picture, that's so close to the middle of the global political spectrum that it's often impossible to discern between 'left' and 'right' - the German 'liberal' party, for example, is generally considered economically right.
Left of liberalism, there's still a number of perfectly acceptable differing political notions, such as social democratism, which originates from the moderate majority of the workership of the industrialization and differs from liberalism in so far that it tries for a strongly socially influenced capitalism, the left-libertarian movements that had their big advent in the sixties and which are nowadays organized in the various 'Green' parties, and so on into the communistic movements.
The US may have a political scene with a heavyly 'right' overweight, but outside it, liberalism is just not left.
(Sorry for the derail, but hey, it's a pet peeve of mine.)
Spooge, I agree with you that some of the questions of the test tend to lean to one side of the picture, but seeing that the test tries to rate the testeds stance towards typical statements of each political side, that's hardly surprising. Did you take it to the end? I for mine got a <a href='http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=printable_graph&X=-7.25&Y=-8.26' target='_blank'>result</a> acceptably close to my percieved position.
I took the test all the way through and my result was near to my positions but the questions did not accurately portray my point of view. Too many of the questions didn't give me a possiblity for answering my position.
Examples:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe people are divided by class or nationality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The rich are too highly taxed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Define "rich".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here I'm forced to disagree because of the word "right". I don't believe anyone has a "right" to medical care. Change that word to "access" and I can decide.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mislead about what?
Words have meaning and these questions are worded poorly. That's why I won't support this test.
EDIT: typo gremlins strike again!
As I said, 'archetypical statements'. Most of these are, as you might've noticed, derived from popular quotes or general one-line quips. I went for the 'milder' choices on a fair number of occasions due to dubious wording as well, but that's simply part of the test - it doesn't try to portray your own opinion, but your stance towards a number of <i>different</i> opinions.
Really, I can't see why "that test is a joke" when it does indeed manage to hit your political opinion sufficiently close, although not in a way you would've choosen.
Ed Schultz (not on the station yet, but part of the stream, for some reason) was actually very listenable—eerily close to Rush, but I’ve been interested to hear him since Esquire did a piece on him a few months ago.
I listened to Janeane Garafolo for a bit, mostly because David Chappelle and Atrios were going to be on. While she usually drives me up a wall, I could tolerate her for the most part and she made some good points, though predictably , she did get obnoxiously militant a few times.
Overall, it has potential, but it definitely needs some tweaking and ironing.
As far as Bill O’Reilly goes, I listen to him occasionally when I’m driving in my car during his timeslot, and he usually irritates me pretty quickly. While I occasionally agree with him, he whines way . . . too . . . much. Honestly, for a man who makes his living attacking people, he really has to drop his whole woe-is-me, victimized ‘humble servant’ routine anytime someone says something negative about him. For a man who tries so hard to come off as a tough scrapper, he’s really got to learn how to deal with it better.
He’s also always trying to take the high road and the low road at once—months ago, as he was ‘sadly’ slamming Franken as a ‘smear merchant’, he mentioned how he doesn’t stoop to that level, and you’d never hear Franken mentioned on the show again. Yet almost every time I listen, there’s at least one knock on ‘Stewart Smalley’. It doesn’t surprise me, because that man can rationalize anything. After calling a judge in Florida ‘loony’, a caller reminded him that he claims that he isn’t a name caller. O’Reilly responded by saying, ‘The wasn’t a name. It was a <i>descriptive adjective</i>’. And he was <b>serious</b>.
Oh well. That’s the beauty of having a dial.
"If it weren't for my horse..."
BTW Monkey, love your sig quote. Donnie Darko>All
And as to why the products of companies that advertise on liberal radio don't sell, it could be that many liberals disagree with the policies of corporations such as WalMart or other companies who make huge profits by paying employees little so they are able to cut prices on products. Liberals are much more likely to be willing to pay more to shop at Meijer (Large Midwest chain) or some other store because they support unions and all that stuff, and they are not going to change their ways because of some radio advertisement.
Not many kids born into liberal families become conservative.
Let me explain the story,
Back when this whole matter blew up the painkiller Oxycontin was being prescribed rather readily. Doctors during the time misunderstood the power of it. (modern day morphism) after Rush's heart attack he was pescribed the drug (which technically only should of been given to cancer patients) likewise the drug is rather addictive, I was addicted to the drug for a short while and got ahold of a good amount. The problem here is not Rush's fault it's his doctor's for pescribing him basically synthetic morphine. You should be commending him on his ability to seek help and I wouldn't be surpised if down the road someone sued for prescribing the drug as much as they did.
Again, it's not Rush's fault for this whole matter it's his doctor's.
Rush is a total "blowhard" about drugs and drug users. He has no sympathy for drug addicts that got addicted at an early age, drug users who got addicted while depressed, or drug users that are addicted against their own wishes. So why in the holy hell should anyone give him any sympathy for getting "accidently" addicted to the drug, then "accidently" spending boatloads of money on buying it illegally, then "accidently" lying about it all.
Let me explain the story,
Back when this whole matter blew up the painkiller Oxycontin was being prescribed rather readily. Doctors during the time misunderstood the power of it. (modern day morphism) after Rush's heart attack he was pescribed the drug (which technically only should of been given to cancer patients) likewise the drug is rather addictive, I was addicted to the drug for a short while and got ahold of a good amount. The problem here is not Rush's fault it's his doctor's for pescribing him basically synthetic morphine. You should be commending him on his ability to seek help and I wouldn't be surpised if down the road someone sued for prescribing the drug as much as they did.
Again, it's not Rush's fault for this whole matter it's his doctor's. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to point out that for both my appendix removal and wisdom teeth pulling I was prescribed Oxycotin, and I'm in no way addicted to any of them. I don't get how people can become addicted to drugs <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
When my appendix was removed they gave me a choice between morphine and oxycotin (though I wasn't really in much pain to begin with, it was an awesome 2 days out of school, got to read Timeline and Sphere <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). The morphine I found especially weak, maybe I'm just really weird..
I can now understand why people stopped taking penicillin and we've got super-viruses now. That stuff tastes horrible...<i>horrrrrible</i> (still took it all though - blech).
For the quiz thing, it put me in the middle-ish of the compass. (slightly left and libertarian...so...who am I supposed to vote for? heh. Which I guess make a little sense, since it's hard to offend me (if it happens at all, sometimes you get that joking offense stuff, 'cause it's funny <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
Not a big fan of Bush, not sure about Kerry...and don't trust that third, moderately high at 4%-ish of the vote, party.
Rush is a total "blowhard" about drugs and drug users. He has no sympathy for drug addicts that got addicted at an early age, drug users who got addicted while depressed, or drug users that are addicted against their own wishes. So why in the holy hell should anyone give him any sympathy for getting "accidently" addicted to the drug, then "accidently" spending boatloads of money on buying it illegally, then "accidently" lying about it all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Drug addiction plays no political parties. You would be surpised on how people act when they become addicted to a substance.
Theres science in the matter I could go on about how bad it **** with ones mind.
You get the dillusions of yourself still in pain along with the chemical addiction.
Reminder to you that not all people respond the same to medication, and that some people become addicted more then others, in his case they prescribed too much.
If your given morphine just a little, its benefitial, but what they gave Rush was much too much and they gave it to him by himself. Just handed it over.
There is a difference between a drug user and an painkiller addict, I know ordinary people who come out of a hospital can become addicted to this. Once they don't get their fix, their brain starts to think it's in pain again.
Yes it was accidental, along with that anything he did (such as buying boatloads of it illegally) would mean he was mentally incomp.
Rush is still someone to be respected, if not this adds to his moral character and what he said in regards to drug and drug "users" is still good advice. Doctors triggered Rush's addiction, not a dealer or friend or pusher.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes it was accidental, along with that anything he did (such as buying boatloads of it illegally) would mean he was mentally incomp. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, this is not something the law recognizes. You don't get a free pass just because you need a fix.
Sure, the issue of how liberals are totally wrogn about all the issues. You'd have to be pretty obtuse not to get that the whole point of these shows, liberal and conservative, is to spin issues a certain away and repeat ad nasuem coordinated spin points (ever wonder why the talk show hosts focus on almost the same issues in the same way, using the same terms and making the same sorts of accusations, sometimes just in slightly different language?). Callers are simply props to this end.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know Al Gore tried to throw out the absentee votes :|
He didn't want soldiers to have a voice. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, repeating a canned spin point straight off all the conservative is definately not a sign of dogmatism...
Please, tell me again how Kerry voted 350 times to increase taxes, or gut intelligence funding? If you think either of these are even close to being honest assesments of the facts, then you should really take a long hard look at where your opinions come from.
That bit was painfully, painfully bad, right from the get go.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then there's woman after Franken. Whoa. Somebody needs a Prozac. For someone who says they've been doing a radio show for 10+ years, she's got some weak radio skills. Can't seem to hold a conversation with caller either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://airamericaradio.com/www/pub/prg4about.htm' target='_blank'>Just the way she tips her head to one side in this photo ticks me off.</a>
Though let's be fair: her on-air demeanor is almost exactly like Bob Grant and Michael Savage (she could pretty much be Savage's little sister for all I know, they sound so much alike aside from politics). I think people who aren't used to talk radio in general will find the sorts of behavior these people have a bit odd, but they are pretty much par for the course on talk radio, really.
"I supported the first Gulf War." "It helped alot of people." Rhodes said.
go back to 1990's
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL." <----Common liberal chant.
Rhodes today
"This war was about oil."
Same stupid liberal rhetoric.
See Apos, I work in the medical field, If you study history you would know about Morphism, alot of good people got addicted to morphine after the Civil War and did things they had no real control over. Same thing applied to Rush. Still what Rush said in regards to drug control still is good advice? No?
Painkiller addiction is not something you blame a person for. What the kooks at AAR are busting Rush on...is in fact, weak, and shows immaturity. They are so far to the left I doubt they have a right hand. Nader himself doesn't like these guys.
Like I said, He had no control over what happend...he is not a doctor, not even the doctors knew the power of Oxycontin "Not like they try it on themselves." a few friends said they should of had a lawsuit placed on the companies who made the drug or those doctors who pescribed it.
"This war was about oil." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, she said those things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->go back to 1990's
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL." <----Common liberal chant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Find me a quote where *she* said that, and I'll give you that she's a hypocrite.
Frankly, most of the world is hypocritical, liberal and conservative both. I don't pretend that Air America is all that much better than your average right-wing radio broadcast, but at least the playing field finally has two teams on it.
I'm not a big fan of Rhodes, myself. She was going off today about the electronic voting machines, how there's no way to do a recount and how it's a "black box" technology too easily tampered with. She took a caller who offered an opposing viewpoint: that electronic voting machines for the first time offered the ability to use what's called "instant runoff voting." * Rather than listen to the caller and perhaps discuss the potential merits of IRV, Rhodes simply plowed over her with the same thing she'd just said - that it wasn't about that, it was about black-box voting and the fact that there's no way to do a recount, etc.
It doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative; a person who is so caught up in their own rhetoric that they can't even listen to what someone else might say on the subject is not someone I care to listen to.
____
<i>* Instant runoff voting: in a nutshell, you get to "rank" all the candidates you support. In the event that your #1 choice loses the race, your vote is recounted as a vote for your #2 choice, and so on. This is good because one of the major complaints of the 2-party system is that a vote for a 3rd party is a "throw away" vote - or worse, a vote for the opposition. In an election that used instant runoff voting, I could vote for a 3rd party candidate with the confidence that if that candidate loses, my vote is not "wasted" and I can still help the mainstream candidate I favor to get elected. Some state and local elections already use this system (e.g. San Francisco and Vermont). For more information, <a href='http://www.instantrunoff.com/' target='_blank'>clicky</a>.</i>
"This war was about oil." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, she said those things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->go back to 1990's
"NO BLOOD FOR OIL." <----Common liberal chant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Find me a quote where *she* said that, and I'll give you that she's a hypocrite.
Frankly, most of the world is hypocritical, liberal and conservative both. I don't pretend that Air America is all that much better than your average right-wing radio broadcast, but at least the playing field finally has two teams on it.
I'm not a big fan of Rhodes, myself. She was going off today about the electronic voting machines, how there's no way to do a recount and how it's a "black box" technology too easily tampered with. She took a caller who offered an opposing viewpoint: that electronic voting machines for the first time offered the ability to use what's called "instant runoff voting." * Rather than listen to the caller and perhaps discuss the potential merits of IRV, Rhodes simply plowed over her with the same thing she'd just said - that it wasn't about that, it was about black-box voting and the fact that there's no way to do a recount, etc.
It doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative; a person who is so caught up in their own rhetoric that they can't even listen to what someone else might say on the subject is not someone I care to listen to.
____
<i>* Instant runoff voting: in a nutshell, you get to "rank" all the candidates you support. In the event that your #1 choice loses the race, your vote is recounted as a vote for your #2 choice, and so on. This is good because one of the major complaints of the 2-party system is that a vote for a 3rd party is a "throw away" vote - or worse, a vote for the opposition. In an election that used instant runoff voting, I could vote for a 3rd party candidate with the confidence that if that candidate loses, my vote is not "wasted" and I can still help the mainstream candidate I favor to get elected. Some state and local elections already use this system (e.g. San Francisco and Vermont). For more information, <a href='http://www.instantrunoff.com/' target='_blank'>clicky</a>.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First radio broadcast.
Pay attention coil, im sure im she will say it again
She is probley **** because San Fran voters can't throw ballot boxes into the bay or have them wind up hidden.. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In any case, AAR will last maybe half a year to a year at max. Id wish it survive, but they picked some of the stupidest people. Notice, not one of them has the balls to comend Bush on anything.
Unless some European countries invests in them, HAHA....oh...thats a good laugh.
This is the part where Rush starts whining about how nobody will stand up and take responsibility for anything: just blame everyone else for your problems.
People on morphine do have control over what they do. Certainly they have as much or more control than a crack addict or an alcoholic. If you are prepared to excuse someone who abuses painkillers, why not excuse everyone? Drug addiction IS pretty horrible, and people really are driven to behavior they wouldn't ordinarily do. But why does Rush get a free pass when there are a million other drug sob stories to whom his advice is more jail time, throw away the key?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Same thing applied to Rush. Still what Rush said in regards to drug control still is good advice? No?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, not really. And Rush is case in point of double standards: harsh as hell until you have to face the reality of what getting and being addicted to something is like. Rush's answer to drug addicts is, apparently, only applicable when it's someone else who is the addict.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are so far to the left I doubt they have a right hand. Nader himself doesn't like these guys.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, convince me more that you are not deluded parrot by repeating spin points verbatim.
How about somthing like real life, example: "People suck, some of them deserve to die... But for gods sake, don't hate a whole race for a couple of people!!!"
I just stopped listening to radio and watching News because all of it is biased or just put out to get ratings. Another example: I found out that Brittany Spears was maried to some guy for about 10hrs and it was all over th enews a couple months back) who cares? (Found that out today)
Anyway, a moderate news system of any type would be nice.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Sure, they do a lot of making fun of the news, but in the last two years they've had a very large number of political figures from both the right and the left come on the show, and Jon always gives people the opportunity to express their views without cutting them off (he cracks jokes at them, but they're obvious, goofy jokes, not subtle and malicious ones). While it's not purist political commentary, it's definitely good comedy, and that alone is good enough for me.
You might also listen to Talk of the Nation on NPR. It's a call-in show that is generally very open-minded and moderate. They have guests from both sides of the political spectrum, give each the opportunity to talk, but don't let them get into childish ranting or bickering. Also, because it's NPR, there isn't any corporate pandering or advertising.