RE: Restoring the draft

RE: Restoring the draft (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 10:46:39 AM)
As an experiment, I forced myself to listen to talk radio at work all night for 3 weeks, setting the radio buttons to Air America, Savage Nation, Randi Rhodes, etc. The above assessment matches what I heard, while flipping back and forth. Additionally, I could not help but notice that these shows solicit their advertising from a pretty bizarre layer of commerce. Predatory lenders, health and vanity scams, and other woo-woo clogged the breaks, leading me to wonder if the people behind these shows start with the premise that their target demographic is listeners who will have absolutely zero critical thinking skills.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 10:52:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol It's not that lefties dislike FOX; it's that FOX hates the lefties. Lefties actually find FOX interesting, because it displays the populist right's lowest denominators for all to see. Extreme-right wingers, in their paranoia, always seem to believe people from the other side of the political spectrum 'hate' them. I think 'hate' isn't a qualifier to being left-wing. Au contraire, mon cher. One has to know one's enemies, and FOX does the job pretty well at making MY enemies known to me (I qualify as a lefty I think). How do you feel about the fact that FOX is owned by Rupert Murdoch (he bought his American nationality; the man's an Aussie bastid!)? Do you think News Coroporation has the United States' interests at heart? Or do you think Murdoch wants to increase his share of the dough through populist propaganda? Several interesting thoughts, kittin, and you aren't snarky, so I attempt to answer some of them. First, I really don't care one way or the other about Murdoch owning News Corp, or how he obtained his American citizenship, as long as it was legal. I don't know of your personal history, although you have given indications that you have either a non-American background, or a history of being an ex-pat, so I don't know what your feelings or understandings are of American culture and history when it comes to citizenship. Suffice it to say that American citizens have a long history of coming from elsewhere. So Murdoch came later than my forefathers. shrugs As for the feelings that "lefties" have for FOX, and that FOX has for "lefties" ... I find it telling that you easily classify a large group of people who do not have the same political and philosophical outlook as you do as your "enemies". Also, your phrase "populist right's lowest denominators for all to see" is intriguing, because it is generally the left side of the political divide that claims "populism" as both their providence, and their philosophical home ground. One the other hand, most "conservatives" see liberals as elitist. Personally, I see more validity in much of what "conservatives" say about the attitudes of the current liberal side of the political and philosophical divide. I'm often called a "conservative" myself, but what I really am is pretty much a classical liberal and the principals of classical liberalism are far from what is proposed and practiced by the modern liberal intelligentsia. Far from embracing populism and "the common man", it appears that lefties of today have a smug sense of superiority that simply is abrasive to many (myself included). Because of this apparent sense of superiority, many of them aren't willing to even entertain the idea that anyone else could have a valid, well-reasoned and morally grounded point of view that disagrees with them. FOX seems to have a good understanding of this fissure in Americans, and decided to focus on this audience. A good business decision, apparently. So, what you then have is a single network that serves about half of the US population, and all the others that tend to embrace the liberal viewpoint of life. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and infuriates the liberals because it dares to disagree. Disagreement with basic liberal principles is heresy in the liberal world view. How does any belief system react to heresy? With anger, outrage, and a sense of betrayal. So they ... you ... attack it. I enjoy poking my thumb in such attacks, from time to time. And who knows? Occasionally I find a "liberal" who can actually listen without going off on a rant about all the neo-cons, Neanderthals, bible -thumpers, war -mongers ... etc, etc, etc. Not very often, though. Firm

luckydog1 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 10:58:09 AM)
"To cap it off, I find most of them have a tendency to be simply rude to their guests. I keep waiting for one of them to be rude to Dr. Hannibal Lecter so we dont have to listen to their inane twaddle any longer. " Or just get the Fairness Doctrine passed. Why is it that you have to listen to them Sinergy??? We must include you, right? No willpower to turn it off, change the station or listen to a CD? Or are you forced to listen at work or something? Seriously, I often hear "lefties" set up the argument this way, but it is BS. You are not forced to listen. And you are joking about having people killed becuase you dislike thier speech and ideas. Sounds real Damn "peacefull" to me.

mnottertail -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:01:23 AM)
how might one go about passing a doctrine, wouldn't we first need to make a law(probably at the constitutional amendment level) that would allow the passing of a doctrine into the lawbooks?

thompsonx -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:02:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind We have reached the point where we have three options, either pay the military a LOT more in order to attract more volunteers, reinstitute the draft to meet recruiting shortfalls, or pull our army out of the rest of the world and only use it for small skirmishes since downsizing has made our military too small for prolonged major combat. None of those choices are popular so politicians facing an election year will try to weasle away from doing any of them. HaveRopeWillBind: Then you could always lead by example and enlist. thompson

Sinergy -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:02:00 AM)
It was a figure of speech, luckydog1. My ex used to listen to them 24x7, and in the interest of maintaining a relationship I put up with it. I dont listen to talk radio, I tend to read my news in papers and magazines at work, or on the net, because in those few moments in my life I can watch television I want to keep up with what is happening in South Park or Whose Line Is It Anyway. Was simply commenting that at times in my life it was on the radio for somebody else to listen to, I found their mindless and uneducated drivel simply breathtaking in it's obtuse idiocy. Sinergy

FirmhandKY -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:04:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail how might one go about passing a doctrine, wouldn't we first need to make a law(probably at the constitutional amendment level) that would allow the passing of a doctrine into the lawbooks? It's called a "Doctrine" because that's what it was called by the FCC when the rule was originally implemented. Firm

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:06:12 AM)
To no one in particular,I was drafted and served,My brother was drafted and served,MY son in law was drafted and served,SO what makes all the rest of you so much better then we?I would love to see the draft come back...bounty

farglebargle -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:13:20 AM)
What chills speech more? A commercial program's producer dumping callers who don't present the approved party-line, or requiring a commercial broadcaster to treat controversial issues of public importance in an honest, equitable and balanced manner? Point/Counterpoint is a great format, and I, for one, believe the People better served. Rush can always follow Stern to satellite, if he wants to control the airtime he gets. Is Rush afraid of not being profitable on satellite? Who made the point of the Advertisers being the scummiest of the scum ( Payday loans, title loans, herbal enhancement, etc... ) ? Think of how much better the debate would be, if for example, William Kristol appeared opposite of Scott Ritter?

mnottertail -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:17:02 AM)
I recall William F. Buckley being quite open to debating any liberal on the planet, but of course, he actually had brains, facts and cogence, something alot of the neo-pop-cons lack sorely. I admire William F. Buckley

Sinergy -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:23:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Rush can always follow Stern to satellite, if he wants to control the airtime he gets. Is Rush afraid of not being profitable on satellite? Who made the point of the Advertisers being the scummiest of the scum ( Payday loans, title loans, herbal enhancement, etc... ) ? I read a review of Howard Stern's show over on satellite. His show was described as extremely boring and generally consisted of Howard Stern talking about how wonderful it was to be on satellite and not having to deal with FCC guidelines and the like. This was 2 years after he left the networks. According to the reviewer, what made Howard Stern so popular on network talk radio was his skirting the line between what could be said and what could not be said, as well as ranting against the strictures which established the lines. When the stricture was no longer there, he really had nothing interesting to talk about. Sirius expected a vast number of his viewers to follow him, and while some did initially, a decline in market share was shown when these people did not renew their contracts for satellite. I suspect the same thing would happen to Rush. His target audience is not going to follow him to satellite. Sinergy p.s. I discovered that my Directv includes satellite radio (XM) and I am happy as a pig in feces. I can play 20s blues or 50s swing or alternative or reggae or hair bands or classical or comedy or... without ever having to hear another Depends diapers commercial.

mnottertail -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:28:39 AM)
Doesn't the latter depends clause contradict your earlier feces posit? Help me get a handle on this Sinergy.

Sinergy -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 11:35:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Doesn't the latter depends clause contradict your earlier feces posit? Help me get a handle on this Sinergy. Depends diapers define the thin barrier between fecal matter and porcine satisfaction. Sinergy

kittinSol -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 12:31:10 PM)
America's multicultural diversity is one of the good things about this country (though it's a shame it's not represented more at the level of the body politic): I pointed out to Rupert's Aussie background because of his tendency to embrace unwholesome xenophobic policies. A definite irony. Since the political system here is based on confrontational and adversarial politics, I see nothing wrong in calling those that disagree with me my political 'enemies'. Obviously, I won't wage a war against them (I hate war with a vengeance). I need to point out at this stage though that extreme right-wing people tend to take advantage of democracy in order to crush and silence through policy those that disagree with them (see: Thatcher, Bush, Sarkozy). Populism today can be applied to varying political beliefs. I affirm that in America today, populism is used to propagate all sorts of right-wing ideas: nationalism and religious fundamentalism spring to mind. FOX is about business and not much less: it has caught on to the fact (long ago!) that jingoism is far, far more popular than reasoned, informed opinion. Think about it: this is a culture that is deliberately decadent. People are encouraged to consume, not to think, and there is nothing more attractive to lazy, overfed audiences than pre-packaged, emotionally orientated, thought-numbing propaganda. You'll object it is their choice to make: absolutely. People in democracies have the governments they deserve. FOX doesn't infuriate the 'liberals' (how I love that the term 'liberal' is now a term of insult): it amuses them. What we have to ensure is that we encourage the next generation of voters to use their heads. Not something that is ever in FOX' interest.

Sinergy -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 3:06:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER To no one in particular,I was drafted and served,My brother was drafted and served,MY son in law was drafted and served,SO what makes all the rest of you so much better then we?I would love to see the draft come back...bounty I registered for the draft at the age of 18, which I believe was 2 years after the draft was repealed in the United States following the Vietnam War. I would have hated serving in the military, but I would have gone. I do not think I am better than you or anybody else who was or is in the service, BOUNTYHUNTER, I simply object to the way some administrations use our military. The reason I dont want the draft reinstated was what I posted elsewhere; our military for what it was designed for (large scale combat operations against a mechanized army in Eurasia) is no place for draftees or unskilled individuals culled from prisons. We had enough people from volunteers before AnencephalyBoy decided to send them all over the the Middle East with targets on their heads. His goal was to use the modern military to fight his version of the Vietnam War. Most people can see how well that ended up working out for us. Sinergy

Owner59 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 3:41:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Yeah, I guess RATINGS count more for HONESTY and INTEGRITY, eh? I see Olbermann's low numbers as clear evidence of his correctness. Just like Air America's low ratings were an indication of their correctness? So ... why do you think that expressly "liberal" talk shows, and TV news networks have low ratings, and "conservative" talk shows and TV news networks have high ratings? People are idiots? Confused? Deceived? Mentally unbalanced? Firm Again with the half truths and spin. Imagine starting an airline,from scratch.Just some investors and a few pilots. Imagine taking 10-15 percent of the air travel market,in three years and you`re still growing.. You`d be called a booming success by any standard.You`d be on the cover of Forbes and a sought after guest speaker.bush would hail you as an American success story. Air America has done just that,and their audience share grows.In three years,AAR has taken a huge bite out of the talk radio market,and advertisers are getting that message. http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/27/133632.php Foreigner Rupert Murdock,lost over 84 million dollars a year, for the 1st five years,propping up Fox News.How is that a success?Well,a neo-con might see that as "progress"(as in progress in Iraq),but it`s not. Raw numbers,averaged numbers,don`t always mean much ,when taken out of context.Right now,progressive radio is growing,while conservitive talk radio is shrinking.It took Rush Limbaugh 10 years to get where he is.Look at what AAR has done in 3 years. Numbers and stats can be spun,to hide the negitives. Just look at bush`s "booming" economy.True,someone`s getting rich,but the average wage in the US,has been flat for 5 years.With inflation factored in,that`s`s a pay cut.That`s a pay cut in income to average folks,for five years.This is why people think the economy sucks,cuz it does.All the spin in Fox New`s grasp,can`t hide that fact. Can we get back to debating the merits of a draft?

Owner59 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 4:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol It's not that lefties dislike FOX; it's that FOX hates the lefties. Lefties actually find FOX interesting, because it displays the populist right's lowest denominators for all to see. Extreme-right wingers, in their paranoia, always seem to believe people from the other side of the political spectrum 'hate' them. I think 'hate' isn't a qualifier to being left-wing. Au contraire, mon cher. One has to know one's enemies, and FOX does the job pretty well at making MY enemies known to me (I qualify as a lefty I think). How do you feel about the fact that FOX is owned by Rupert Murdoch (he bought his American nationality; the man's an Aussie bastid!)? Do you think News Coroporation has the United States' interests at heart? Or do you think Murdoch wants to increase his share of the dough through populist propaganda? Several interesting thoughts, kittin, and you aren't snarky, so I attempt to answer some of them. First, I really don't care one way or the other about Murdoch owning News Corp, or how he obtained his American citizenship, as long as it was legal. I don't know of your personal history, although you have given indications that you have either a non-American background, or a history of being an ex-pat, so I don't know what your feelings or understandings are of American culture and history when it comes to citizenship. Suffice it to say that American citizens have a long history of coming from elsewhere. So Murdoch came later than my forefathers. shrugs As for the feelings that "lefties" have for FOX, and that FOX has for "lefties" ... I find it telling that you easily classify a large group of people who do not have the same political and philosophical outlook as you do as your "enemies". Also, your phrase "populist right's lowest denominators for all to see" is intriguing, because it is generally the left side of the political divide that claims "populism" as both their providence, and their philosophical home ground. One the other hand, most "conservatives" see liberals as elitist. Personally, I see more validity in much of what "conservatives" say about the attitudes of the current liberal side of the political and philosophical divide. I'm often called a "conservative" myself, but what I really am is pretty much a classical liberal and the principals of classical liberalism are far from what is proposed and practiced by the modern liberal intelligentsia. Far from embracing populism and "the common man", it appears that lefties of today have a smug sense of superiority that simply is abrasive to many (myself included). Because of this apparent sense of superiority, many of them aren't willing to even entertain the idea that anyone else could have a valid, well-reasoned and morally grounded point of view that disagrees with them. FOX seems to have a good understanding of this fissure in Americans, and decided to focus on this audience. A good business decision, apparently. So, what you then have is a single network that serves about half of the US population, and all the others that tend to embrace the liberal viewpoint of life. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and infuriates the liberals because it dares to disagree. Disagreement with basic liberal principles is heresy in the liberal world view. How does any belief system react to heresy? With anger, outrage, and a sense of betrayal. So they ... you ... attack it. I enjoy poking my thumb in such attacks, from time to time. And who knows? Occasionally I find a "liberal" who can actually listen without going off on a rant about all the neo-cons, Neanderthals, bible -thumpers, war -mongers ... etc, etc, etc. Not very often, though. Firm The snarkyless one writes: "First, I really don't care one way or the other about Murdoch owning News Corp, or how he obtained his American citizenship, as long as it was legal." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ His legal status isn`t the issue,it`s his allegiances,and they`re certainly not to America. That you don`t care is apparent. The deals he`s making w/ China right now are against our interests,and are going to hurt America.Murdock has only one interest,himself and getting more media power. The only reason why republicans like this pirate,is that he`s given them their own news channel.Murdock is no dummy,he knows who`s for sale in this country.That`s the same reason why the rightwing loves Rev.Sun Myung Moon so much.The moonies carry their water,and finance there propaganda projects. He`s the right`s secrete darling and sugar daddy . http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/122706.html The average republican in this country has no clue about these foreign and un-American influences,and how they`ve affected American policy,for the worst. The ones that do know,and keep mum, are traitors.IMO Murdock,Moon,anyone w/ enough money can buy the rightwing,and use them like whores.And they have.

farglebargle -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 4:42:09 PM)
What are the national security issues of selling off infrastructure to foreigners? National Grid is another example...

Owner59 -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 5:17:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy It was a figure of speech, luckydog1. My ex used to listen to them 24x7, and in the interest of maintaining a relationship I put up with it. I dont listen to talk radio, I tend to read my news in papers and magazines at work, or on the net, because in those few moments in my life I can watch television I want to keep up with what is happening in South Park or Whose Line Is It Anyway. Was simply commenting that at times in my life it was on the radio for somebody else to listen to, I found their mindless and uneducated drivel simply breathtaking in it's obtuse idiocy. Sinergy It`s not that one has to listen.It`s the knowledge of all the damage done,that irks normal thoughtful people.The myths and lies they peddle do damage.Just look at how many Fox news viewers think that Saddam Hussain had a roll in the 9/11 attacks.They didn`t get bullshited by regular media on that one.It was Fox that did that. The conservative media just repeats Karl Rove`s talking points.Fox News is the media arm of the republican party,and is without a trace of objectivity.They`re not even a news outlet.They`re a tabloid.The only effort at news analysis is to spin the facts their way.

farglebargle -> RE: Restoring the draft (7/24/2007 5:21:14 PM)
For example, labeling Spector as a democrat in their coverage of the Alberto Gonzales grilling today. There's ONLY 100 fucking senators, how hard is it to keep track?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875