Jump to content
rigney

ANGER, FRUSTRATION, HATE? ALL OF THE ABOVE?

Recommended Posts

I surely must have missed something in the commentary below since I just can't seem to understand todays radicalism. Last night I listened as a professed "MAN of GOD", Al Sharpton; demanding that Rush Limbaugh be excommunicated and thrown off the air ways of radio! What in the hell is going on? Have we gone completely bonkers? Who is Al Sharpton to demand anyone be barred, banned and yet, be given air time to espouse such hatred and ignorance? To my way of thinking, the guy is a nut case at best. The Kook depicted below, is just a Kook! The Al Sharptons of this world, and anyone who think as they do; are the ones we really need to be worried about!

 

http://ww2.cox.com/myconnection/cleveland/today/news/national/article.cox?articleId=D9JVT6UO0&moduleType=apNews

Edited by rigney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the what now? I don't know who any of those people are...but religious people will often call things that they see as something their god wouldn't like to be banned. Your link appears to be wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rigney; Sharpton and many others have been trying to re-enact the "fairness Doctrine" since Reagan got it dropped. With all the media not currently covered under FCC authority, it's just not going to happen. However there is talk of adding authority to the FCC for Internet Activity, which is a concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking how one person can be given the air time to call for someone else to be kicked off the air? My irony meter just broke.

 

Your link doesn't go to this story, BTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the what now? I don't know who any of those people are...but religious people will often call things that they see as something their god wouldn't like to be banned. Your link appears to be wrong...

 

Well then, I suggest you find out who these guys are, then extrapolate. If you still insist my link is loose, then cozy up and kiss it, like you would your "Goose"! Perhaps then, you may find nothing is cut in stone. Even Gods! Who knows for sure?

 

You're asking how one person can be given the air time to call for someone else to be kicked off the air? My irony meter just broke.

 

Your link doesn't go to this story, BTW

 

Don't break your meter just because of me 00. Both Sharpton and this nut case are radicals, pure and simple. Unfortunately, we only look for the guy with the explosives, not the perpitrator or the instigator. Best keep that thing cocked!

 

rigney; Sharpton and many others have been trying to re-enact the "fairness Doctrine" since Reagan got it dropped. With all the media not currently covered under FCC authority, it's just not going to happen. However there is talk of adding authority to the FCC for Internet Activity, which is a concern.

 

What is fairness? If you are richer than I, more intellectual, smarter, luckier? Should I demand that sharing your bounty will make me a better person? Hell No! Idleness and ignorance are the worlds greatest follies. This civilization seems bent on allowing these things to happen due to liberal indulgence. Eventually it will be that each of us as individuals are responsible for finding ways of sustaining our lives, or perish. There will be no in between. Edited by rigney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking how one person can be given the air time to call for someone else to be kicked off the air? My irony meter just broke.

 

Your link doesn't go to this story, BTW

 

Got a little carried away, didn't I? But as much as I dislike Rush (Limbo?), I despise Al Sharpton even more. And irony, Yep! should have made each of them a topics. Edited by rigney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain how the link you provided relates to the topic (if it even is the one you meant to provide)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rigney; Sharpton and many others have been trying to re-enact the "fairness Doctrine" since Reagan got it dropped. With all the media not currently covered under FCC authority, it's just not going to happen. However there is talk of adding authority to the FCC for Internet Activity, which is a concern.

 

Yea! I know. MSNBC is a perfect example. If that Mr. Ed show, (The Talking Horse's A--); doesn't get some help soon, they may have to move the whole network to FOX News, but without him! What a jerk.

 

Can you explain how the link you provided relates to the topic (if it even is the one you meant to provide)?

 

Dumb! just plain dumb. Hey!, when a person gets bald, fat, old, ugly and "forgetful", there are gonna make mistakes. Please, just don't use the big stick on me when I do. As it is, I feel total reproach for my ignorance. Edited by rigney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rigney; O'Rielly has a nightly pole, where his audience votes for "pinhead or patriot". I've seen some one sided results before, but last nights pole was Sharpton's comments on Rush Limbaugh, with over 10,000 responding and NOT ONE patriot vote.

 

Can you still see out your windows or has this global warming snow fall not reached the second floor...anyway keep warm and don't mess with a snow shovel...By the way. I seem to recall your birthday is in December, whether early or late, I hope you have a 76th Happy Birthday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then, I suggest you find out who these guys are, then extrapolate. If you still insist my link is loose, then cozy up and kiss it, like you would your "Goose"! Perhaps then, you may find nothing is cut in stone. Even Gods! Who knows for sure?

 

angry.gifI was offended by this...I don't know why...i'm not even a member of a religion...but looks offensive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rigney; O'Rielly has a nightly pole, where his audience votes for "pinhead or patriot". I've seen some one sided results before, but last nights pole was Sharpton's comments on Rush Limbaugh, with over 10,000 responding and NOT ONE patriot vote.

 

Can you still see out your windows or has this global warming snow fall not reached the second floor...anyway keep warm and don't mess with a snow shovel...By the way. I seem to recall your birthday is in December, whether early or late, I hope you have a 76th Happy Birthday.

 

I wish! 78 is a milestone to somewhere, just don't know where? But thanks. Personally I don't like Limbaugh myself, but many of my friends do. Trying to take him off the air is "Bull Shit!" If Al Sharpton had a day long program, even as much as I detest him, I wouldn't want him removed either. Damn!, that's what diversity is all about. A one sided coin is as fake as a gal using Kleenex to stuff a bra, even though that's a good reason. Know what I mean? It will be a sad day in the history of this great country if we allow liberal dictates to rule. By the way, I'm not a right wing nut, either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my, 78 and still golfing, I have a hard time getting up enough energy to go to a store. With your interest in learning new things (attitude), you should be OK to 100....

 

Well, the Reverend Sharpton does have a National "Radio Show", on 19 Stations (Limbaugh over 600)and has had his problems voicing opinions. While I don't listen to his show, it remains his right...what's the saying "like the pot calling the kettle black"....(as in hypocrisy for the PC crowd).

 

http://radiotime.com/program/p_61441/The_Al_Sharpton_Show.aspx

 

Yeah, I've noted a bit of FDR progressivism in some of your comments, often seen in folks living through the depression era, wondering why you don't jump into more of the issues in the 'Politics' sub-forum. Many show the same signs, but not likely based on FDR, rather simply being a modern day centrist. Most consider me that hard line "right winger", however I prefer saying a "Constitutional Conservative".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my, 78 and still golfing, I have a hard time getting up enough energy to go to a store. With your interest in learning new things (attitude), you should be OK to 100....

 

Well, the Reverend Sharpton does have a National "Radio Show", on 19 Stations (Limbaugh over 600)and has had his problems voicing opinions. While I don't listen to his show, it remains his right...what's the saying "like the pot calling the kettle black"....(as in hypocrisy for the PC crowd).

 

http://radiotime.com/program/p_61441/The_Al_Sharpton_Show.aspx

 

Yeah, I've noted a bit of FDR progressivism in some of your comments, often seen in folks living through the depression era, wondering why you don't jump into more of the issues in the 'Politics' sub-forum. Many show the same signs, but not likely based on FDR, rather simply being a modern day centrist. Most consider me that hard line "right winger", however I prefer saying a "Constitutional Conservative".

 

Thanks for the http: tip. Now I'll know what stations not to dial into! I'm not a radical 33. but simply like to think along coservative lines, that's all. Personally, I'm a "Middle of the roader". I've been on either side of the tracks so many times it's getting just a bit blurred and scary trying to make the jump again. Bones are getting a bit brittle and I dont want to break something. You know what I mean? I only wish a majority of younger folks could visualize a full lifetime of what they are about to committ themselves to before it becomes a reality. But when the big day finally arrives, it's too late to do anything about it, it's done and you're "shit out of luck". The Sharptons and Limbaugh's don't bother me so much, but the heretical leanings these younger listeners take, scares the hell out of me. Thank God I lack formal training. intellect if you will?. If I were even a tiny bit bourgeoisie, I'd more than likely be a basket case by now. Edited by rigney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have listened to both conservative and liberal talk radio. There is a difference. The conservative talk shows tend to slant a little more toward fresh logic and argument, while the liberal tends to slant a little more toward emotional appeal. Emotional appeal tends to get old faster, while fresh logic and argument seems to allow continuous nuance that makes it interesting. I am not saying conservative radio doesn't also use emotional appeal, but it tries to balance this with enough new ideas and logic to keep from getting stale. Rather than complain or try to use the government to force equal time, liberal radio should use the Rush template by doing their research and coming up with new angles to say the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

angry.gifI was offended by this...I don't know why...i'm not even a member of a religion...but looks offensive...

!

Moderator Note

ProcuratorIncendia, if you have a problem with a post, please report it (lower left of the post box, yellow triangle icon). In the report you can explain what you feel is offensive, and then let the staff deal with it.

 

edit: in-thread discussion tends to derail the thread, as it has done here; I have removed those posts

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Censure

 

Absolutely! Couldn't agree with you more.

 

Rigney...Why have you not even attempted to apologise for your offensive post?dry.gif

 

I didn't think the post was offensive. A bit ambiguous perhaps, but nothing owing you a personal apology. If I hurt your feeling, let's talk about it privately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have listened to both conservative and liberal talk radio. There is a difference. The conservative talk shows tend to slant a little more toward fresh logic and argument, while the liberal tends to slant a little more toward emotional appeal.

 

This has gotta be a POE. Please, tell me this is a POE.

 

But in case it is not...will you please provide the evidence that this is the case? In other words, please cite your sources as to how you have come to this erroneous conclusion.

Edited by divagreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has gotta be a POE. Please, tell me this is a POE.

 

But in case it is not...will you please provide the evidence that this is the case? In other words, please cite your sources as to how you have come to this erroneous conclusion.

 

To show you how smart I am Diva, what is a POE? While I'm not answering for Pioneer, tell me what was his "erroneous conclusion"? Have you ever watched the Ed Show on MSNBC? The guy scares me just as much if not more than Rush Limbough. Rush is a money baron, nothing more. He gets across to us idiots if we listen. Personally, I can't bear to hear him! Mr. Ed, on the other hand has a much more visceral attitude. No! not visceral, it's really more of a knee jerk. He wants to be a Rush. Just listen to the two of them once, then do yourself a favor, and turn them both off. Edited by rigney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise that it has taken me so long to get to this..

 

To show you how smart I am Diva, what is a POE?

 

I think that the most intelligent thing one can do is ask for more information.

 

It used to apply just to conservative Christian fundamentalists, in short, it's often difficult to tell an "over the top" parody of a fundie, with the real thing. The term has expanded to the more secular of the extreme right as well.

 

From, "Poe's Law"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

 

Reception and usage

 

The use of the term is most common in the skeptical and science-based communities on Web 2.0. Many blogs, forums and wikis will often refer to the law when dealing with cranks of any stripe.

 

Poe's Collary:

 

“It is impossible for an act of Fundamentalism to be made that someone won't mistake for a parody.”

 

See also ---> Poe Paradox

 

The term was first used by RationalWiki editor and now respected blogger The Lay Scientist to describe an apparent paradox in the management of editing rights at Conservapedia:

 

"Any new member of the CP project who's not as Conservative as them is liable to be chucked out. However, any new member who is as Conservative as them is in serious danger of being called a parodist, and chucked out. Is this the first living example of a Poe Paradox?"

 

tell me what was his "erroneous conclusion"?

 

Pioneer wrote:

 

"I have listened to both conservative and liberal talk radio. There is a difference. The conservative talk shows tend to slant a little more toward fresh logic and argument, while the liberal tends to slant a little more toward emotional appeal."

 

Competing corporate media outlets aside, compare right-wing punditry and reportage with actual liberal talk radio to see which actually leans on "appeal to" fallacies and which discusses things in a reasoned and logical manner.

 

Try comparing Rush, et al with; NPR, Free Speech Radio or Democracy Now.

 

Erroneous conclusion as in: Slothful Induction.

Edited by divagreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Sharpton and this nut case are radicals, pure and simple. Unfortunately, we only look for the guy with the explosives, not the perpitrator or the instigator. Best keep that thing cocked!

Are you implying that only people who favor radical politics create ideology/propaganda that can be used as a basis for motivating violence? You don't think anything said in a calm tone by a bureaucrat or non-radical politician can be used to motivate violence? You may be surprised to learn that the most intense violence is reactionary. In other words, it's not radicals but those that react to them that cause the most violence. Radicalism in and of itself actually dissipates the desire for violence by promoting democratic dialogue. People attack when they feel no other way to express their politics. Radicals express relatively uncharted terrain and thus provide channels to dissipate violent force into democratic dialogue.

 

What is fairness? If you are richer than I, more intellectual, smarter, luckier? Should I demand that sharing your bounty will make me a better person? Hell No! Idleness and ignorance are the worlds greatest follies. This civilization seems bent on allowing these things to happen due to liberal indulgence. Eventually it will be that each of us as individuals are responsible for finding ways of sustaining our lives, or perish. There will be no in between.

Fairness in communication is listening to opposing viewpoints and responding to them with serious consideration instead of just shutting them out, talking over them, obfuscating them. provoking them into hanging themselves, or otherwise undermining them in an effort to avoid constructive discussion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise that it has taken me so long to get to this..

 

 

 

I think that the most intelligent thing one can do is ask for more information.

 

It used to apply just to conservative Christian fundamentalists, in short, it's often difficult to tell an "over the top" parody of a fundie, with the real thing. The term has expanded to the more secular of the extreme right as well.

 

From, "Poe's Law"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

 

Reception and usage

 

The use of the term is most common in the skeptical and science-based communities on Web 2.0. Many blogs, forums and wikis will often refer to the law when dealing with cranks of any stripe.

 

Poe's Collary:

 

“It is impossible for an act of Fundamentalism to be made that someone won't mistake for a parody.”

 

See also ---> Poe Paradox

 

The term was first used by RationalWiki editor and now respected blogger The Lay Scientist to describe an apparent paradox in the management of editing rights at Conservapedia:

 

"Any new member of the CP project who's not as Conservative as them is liable to be chucked out. However, any new member who is as Conservative as them is in serious danger of being called a parodist, and chucked out. Is this the first living example of a Poe Paradox?"

 

 

 

Pioneer wrote:

 

"I have listened to both conservative and liberal talk radio. There is a difference. The conservative talk shows tend to slant a little more toward fresh logic and argument, while the liberal tends to slant a little more toward emotional appeal."

 

Competing corporate media outlets aside, compare right-wing punditry and reportage with actual liberal talk radio to see which actually leans on "appeal to" fallacies and which discusses things in a reasoned and logical manner.

 

Try comparing Rush, et al with; NPR, Free Speech Radio or Democracy Now.

 

Erroneous conclusion as in: Slothful Induction.

 

I believe the statement: It is impossible for an act of Fundamentalism to be made that someone won't mistake for a parody, says it all.

 

Are you implying that only people who favor radical politics create ideology/propaganda that can be used as a basis for motivating violence? You don't think anything said in a calm tone by a bureaucrat or non-radical politician can be used to motivate violence? You may be surprised to learn that the most intense violence is reactionary. In other words, it's not radicals but those that react to them that cause the most violence. Radicalism in and of itself actually dissipates the desire for violence by promoting democratic dialogue. People attack when they feel no other way to express their politics. Radicals express relatively uncharted terrain and thus provide channels to dissipate violent force into democratic dialogue.

 

Fairness in communication is listening to opposing viewpoints and responding to them with serious consideration instead of just shutting them out, talking over them, obfuscating them. provoking them into hanging themselves, or otherwise undermining them in an effort to avoid constructive discussion.

 

Your statement: You don't think anything said in a calm tone by a bureaucrat or non-radical politician can be used to motivate violence? You may be surprised to learn that the most intense violence is reactionary. In other words, it's not radicals but those that react to them that cause the most violence. Radicalism in and of itself actually dissipates the desire for violence by promoting democratic dialogue. People attack when they feel no other way to express their politics. Radicals express relatively uncharted terrain and thus provide channels to dissipate violent force into democratic dialogue.

You seem young, rational and for the most part, somewhere in the middle to possible left of things. Afraid I can't convey my total tolerance to such a melonchaly platitude. Thank God you're are not in Hitlers Third Reich, Stalin's Putsch, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge Reign, the Vietnam thing and so far, safe from N. Korea "AGAIN", China, etc. I'm too old to really worry, I just hope you are young enough and smart enough to care.

Edited by rigney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.