29 Nov 04
Originally posted by AaroniousRush is an idiot as far as I'm concerned, however Hannity is usally well informed and can handle his own when it comes to debating against Liberals. What were the animals put here for? If you are a vegan thats your choice but, to downgrade people who eat meat is wrong.
Do any of you listen to these people on the radio?
I find it disturbing that friends of mine actually like these guys. I started listening to them recently for entertainment, but I was surprised to learn that alot of people actually take them seriously.
Recently for instance, Rush implied that the US may need to nuke Fallujah.
Last night, ...[text shortened]... to understand the particular memetic mind-warp that motivates these people. Can you help me?
a
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAre you seriously saying that McCaulif meant that we *should* nuke Fallujah? He obviously didn't suggest that we should actually do that, he merely suggested that it would be the only way to do secure it in his opinion.
I didn't hear him either.
What I did hear was the McCaulif thing on "Hard Ball". Democrats can't have it both ways. Either it (fallujah) is a quagmire and can't be done without "nuking Baghdad" as Mcaulif said, or it might be done with a lot of brave people willing to fight to the death for the idea of freedom for the Iraqi people.
I know L ...[text shortened]... i/Bush family supposed to drive down oil prices to affect the election? Geez! I get so confused.
Out of curiosity I am wondering if Rush tried to spin it into a serious proposition by McCaulif instead of the tongue in cheek statement that it was. When Rush said what he said...it did not come across as tongue in cheek at all.
Rush is indeed an entertainer and thats why I listen. I want to understand why people see the world the way they do. I read something recently that said that only a little over half of his listeners described themselves as conservatives. It doesn't surprise me. It is the Jerry Springer of talk, but I think people are a bit tired of it by now.
Hannity and Rush are funny because they're the only people that can repeatedly assault the character of other people whilst complaining of continuously having their character assaulted. Its funny. Hannity can pull this duplicity off in one sentence, it usually takes Rush about 5 minutes.
Team America *%$# ya!
I just had to throw that in.
The way I see it, the mainstream news is liberal on civil issues like gay marriage and abortion. These are issues that don't really matter much to alot of people, including myself. But the mainstream news is not liberal when it comes to the big issues, which can be seen as their acceptance of the justification of the Iraq war, their smear of Bill Clinton, their destruction of Howard Dean, and their perpetuation of the fiasco surrounding John Kerry's war record. I can't see how someone can say there is a bias there.
People watch the mainstream news to learn what happened. Bias is very subtle here. People watch cable news and listen to talk radio inorder to learn how to interpret the news, and over-all I believe the effect of the right wing on public opinion is currently greater than the effect of the left wing, for the first time in a long time. Even Rush is starting to pronounce that he is no longer the one being marginalized. The "liberal media" card has lost its trump value.
a
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by shavixmirReinforces my point. Rush destroys the left with humor. All the left has is hate. Sad.
If you want to hear an objective opinion on Rush, get hold of Bill Hick's "Rant in E-minor"... You'll never hear such a dark poetic rant again in your life.
I'd copy and paste it here, but it would just get banned within seconds...
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by AaroniousQuite the opposite. He was making the point that we are enmeshed in a quagmire like Vietnam thanks to Bush and that the only way (he said it sarcastically) that we would ever free Fallujah of "insurgents" (not terrorists at all... just good old honorable insurgents) would be to "nuke it".
Are you seriously saying that McCaulif meant that we *should* nuke Fallujah? He obviously didn't suggest that we should actually do that, he merely suggested that it would be the only way to do secure it in his opinion.
Out of curiosity I am wondering if Rush tried to spin it into a serious proposition by McCaulif instead of the tongue in cheek sta ...[text shortened]... nger the one being marginalized. The "liberal media" card has lost its trump value.
a
Hey, don't get on my case. McCaulif and the demo's are the ones intent on the idea of promoting the "unbeatable insurgents" theory.
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by slimjimnah,
Rush is an idiot as far as I'm concerned, however Hannity is usally well informed and can handle his own when it comes to debating against Liberals. What were the animals put here for? If you are a vegan thats your choice but, to downgrade people who eat meat is wrong.
I eat plenty of meat. I was making fun of his belief that God put animals here via some instantaneous act of creation for the express purpose of providing people with meat.
This is such a strange stance in light of science. I wonder if Gawd put the T-rex here so we could eat it also. Oh wait, people weren't even around when the T-rex lived...sorry.
a
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThat was my point, that he said it sarcastically. Anyways, I am not getting on your case. I think the Dems were trying to pull whatever strings they could to win the election as did the reps.
Quite the opposite. He was making the point that we are enmeshed in a quagmire like Vietnam thanks to Bush and that the only way (he said it sarcastically) that we would ever free Fallujah of "insurgents" (not terrorists at all... just good old honorable insurgents) would be to "nuke it".
Hey, don't get on my case. McCaulif and the demo's are the ones intent on the idea of promoting the "unbeatable insurgents" theory.
That said, I think that taking cities in Iraq is like securing ant hills with sticks.
a
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by AaroniousProbably the T-rex would taste like an iguana which is quite tasty to be honest.
nah,
I eat plenty of meat. I was making fun of his belief that God put animals here via some instantaneous act of creation for the express purpose of providing people with meat.
This is such a strange stance in light of science. I wonder if Gawd put the T-rex here so we could eat it also. Oh wait, people weren't even around when the T-rex lived...sorry.
a
29 Nov 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWySurely, in all your ultimate wisdom and blah blah blah, you're not going to say that Rush is funnier than Bill Hicks...
Reinforces my point. Rush destroys the left with humor. All the left has is hate. Sad.
Even you couldn't type it without making a fool of yourself!
29 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by AaroniousMaybe. But if you truly believe that "all people are created equal"... and love the notion of freedom and what Dr. King did here. You see that the idea either means something for ALL people or it is reserved only for "us".
That was my point, that he said it sarcastically. Anyways, I am not getting on your case. I think the Dems were trying to pull whatever strings they could to win the election as did the reps.
That said, I think that taking cities in Iraq is like securing ant hills with sticks.
a
I truly believe that "all" people deserve the OPPORTUNITY of going to a voting place and being important. At least as important as to have the right to vote for a FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
I don't know if what I think matters though. It is a thing that was decided when the tanks rolled across the border from Kuwait.
It doesn't seem fair to second guess now. I am either for the terrorists succeeding or I am for the US succeeding. Those seem to be the only options that "reality" has presented. I choose the people of Iraq. Being free.
Dumb dream? Maybe.
I honor the brave souls dying to give the hope of freedom to all people. Just as I stood in class in 1961 and debated Dennis Lemon in my home room class in Mesa arizona about the rights of "Negro" people to be as free as I and my family. The terminology changes. The Idea remains.
30 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNah. Wherever you go there are stupid arguments where the author has clearly decided what their opinion is without thinking and then made a poor attempt to justify it. In the UK, I could read the Daily Mail one day and see a rant about how 'asylum seekers' (read: anyone who can't trace their ancestry back x generations in Anglo-Saxon countries) are taking over the country, because the author saw several brown-skinned people at a train station in London; the next day I could read the Guardian and see a rant about the patriarchal conspiracy, using various examples of bad things which happen to women but also happen just as much to men.
In Europe, maybe; there sure ain't none here.
The standard mistake seems to be to divide the world into "Us" and "Them" and declare "Them" to be evil. Right-wingers are more inclined to do this overtly, but then left-wingers will often put themselves in the 'them' category (even if they don't admit it), so it becomes an exercise in self-loathing.
Popular left-wing divisions (Good v Evil):
'People v Corporations' (erm, don't most of us work for some company or other, and don't all of us buy their products? Also, one rather large corporation is considered to be unquestionably good: THE STATE)
Women v Men (because all men are pigs!)
Ethnic minorities v the ethnic majority (in the form of insistence that everything in society is divided up pro rata to ensure 'fair' representation of minorities, eg if there are ten people in the country with a particular job, at least one should be from a minority)
Moderates v Fundamentalists (read: people who have strong opinions which aren't liberal)
'the Proletariat' v 'the Bourgeoisie' (wanting to help the poor is fine, but some people seem to believe that being well-off is inherently wicked, and that reducing the quality of life of rich people is a good thing even if no-one else benefits from doing so. And contrary to popular belief, 'the workers' in the sense of factory workers are a minority in the Western Europe and in fact most countries in the world)
Nature v Humanity (this ranges from animal rights superceding human ones, to a desire to wipe out the human race 'for the good of the planet'😉
Popular right-wing divisions:
True Believers v the 'Unsaved' (often the 'unsaved's' beliefs differ from the true beliefs only slightly, eg Protestant v Catholics)
'Law-abiding citizens' v criminals (once you become a criminal you cease to have any human rights, in some formulations; arguments are framed not in terms of reducing crime itself, but by reducing the prevalence of 'criminal types' who are sometimes allied with 'deviants'😉
Compatriots v 'foreigners' (here 'foreigner' includes people whose parents, grandparents etc were born in your country. All that matters is that their ancestors came from a recognisably different race,culture or region to your own at some point in the past)
'Ordinary people' v 'Deviants' (read: homosexuals, drug users, women who choose careers over having kids, etc etc)
'People with common sense' v Intellectuals (as a justification for making overly simplistic and careless arguments, this one's hard to beat!)
'Hard-working people' v 'Slackers' (ie the unemployed, those who can't work through disability, or in fact anyone who pays less in taxes than you)
@chancremechanic: LOL. Thanks to Fox News, I've only ever heard 'fair and balanced' used ironically by people I know.