BF2S Forums Plan to Restore Fairness Doctrine

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If it's already been proven, then why hesitate to challenge me?  Surely, the "proof" you have could defeat anything I have to say, but the only way to "prove" that is to accept the challenge... 

Sighhhhhhhhhhh ok gee, you already admit you can't defend half of the liberal bullshit so now I gotta come up with another. OK, defend the liberal position of standing for freedom and diversity yet insist it all happens in govt. run schools. No vouchers to let students go to school where they want

Racial integration of schools was a necessary, albeit painful, thing.  It increased the diversity of our education system, and it could not have been done as effectively through a purely private institution.

That being said, I support school vouchers, but it's not because I think government-run schooling is such a bad thing.  I just think that America's culture does not provide for a good environment for public education now.

All of the countries that provide good socialized education spend a LOT more per student on their schools than we do.  If we spent as much on education as we do on the military, we'd have a kickass system.  The problem is that our priorities are all fucked up.  We're willing to dump $400 billion into Iraq, but we let our own inner cities decay.  We spend a ridiculous amount of money on healthcare because of the excessive bureaucracy of HMOs.

If we were willing to devote more cash to education and healthcare and less to the military, we'd have decent socialized systems, but we just don't want to.  Or rather...  the powers that be don't....

This is why school vouchers are a comparatively better idea than continuing our mostly underfunded public school systems.

In addition to this, fundamentalist Christians hinder the ability of our system to teach important concepts like evolution, because some of them demand that creationism should be given equal time.  When you have enough religious nuts in your country that a state school board nearly does this (Kansas), then you know your culture has problems.

So, again, in order to spare the rest of the rational public, privatizing education is a good thing, so that the religious nuts can gather in their own deranged communities.

Gee I musta missed something here, the liberal position is to force kids into govt. schools, and your ( our) position is school vouchers so families can choose what is best for their kids as they see it.........................and this is defending the liberal position how??

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Racial integration of schools was a necessary, albeit painful, thing.  It increased the diversity of our education system, and it could not have been done as effectively through a purely private institution.

That being said, I support school vouchers, but it's not because I think government-run schooling is such a bad thing.  I just think that America's culture does not provide for a good environment for public education now.

All of the countries that provide good socialized education spend a LOT more per student on their schools than we do.  If we spent as much on education as we do on the military, we'd have a kickass system.  The problem is that our priorities are all fucked up.  We're willing to dump $400 billion into Iraq, but we let our own inner cities decay.  We spend a ridiculous amount of money on healthcare because of the excessive bureaucracy of HMOs.

If we were willing to devote more cash to education and healthcare and less to the military, we'd have decent socialized systems, but we just don't want to.  Or rather...  the powers that be don't....

This is why school vouchers are a comparatively better idea than continuing our mostly underfunded public school systems.

In addition to this, fundamentalist Christians hinder the ability of our system to teach important concepts like evolution, because some of them demand that creationism should be given equal time.  When you have enough religious nuts in your country that a state school board nearly does this (Kansas), then you know your culture has problems.

So, again, in order to spare the rest of the rational public, privatizing education is a good thing, so that the religious nuts can gather in their own deranged communities.

Gee I musta missed something here, the liberal position is to force kids into govt. schools, and your ( our) position is school vouchers so families can choose what is best for their kids as they see it.........................and this is defending the liberal position how??

By pointing out that government schools would work if we spent enough on them per student and if we didn't have to contend with religious nuts.

No, now you are not answering the question. Your woulda coulda shoulda doesn't count. As the situation is NOW, not what you think could be. Defend the liberal insistance that all of our kids should be forced to go to govt. schools instead of supporting vouchers., and at the same time preach diversity.

I want to force people to listen to me.  Give me air time.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

By pointing out that government schools would work if we spent enough on them per student and if we didn't have to contend with religious nuts.

No, now you are not answering the question. Your woulda coulda shoulda doesn't count. As the situation is NOW, not what you think could be. Defend the liberal insistance that all of our kids should be forced to go to govt. schools instead of supporting vouchers., and at the same time preach diversity.

Well, my defense isn't that different from the one that these abstinence-only people use.  The people who believe there should be no sex education in public school are effectively saying -- "if we teach them that not having sex is the only truly safe way to prevent pregnancy and disease, then it will work perfectly as long as they don't have sex."

"Woulda, shoulda, couldas" aren't just a liberal thing.  Under our current situation, vouchers work better, but that's only because of our lack of foresight.

Throw me another issue you have with liberalism, we're just beating a dead horse with this one.

Defend the liberal position on illegal aliens "right" to a drivers license

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

lowing wrote:

sorry "Sparky", but Gore and Clinton are exactly who represent the modern liberal agenda and who I am against. Pretty much tough shit if you don't like them or their agenda.

Translation: "This is who liberals are because I said so". So good of you to make these tough calls for the rest of us.

lowing wrote:

THey represent the left now, if you don't agree with them then you and I don't have any disagreements.

The Democrats are far too weak and spineless to even attempt the policy changes I'd like to see, so I wouldn't go adding me to your Christmas card list just yet.

lowing wrote:

Next time, instead of one of your long dragged out lextures, why don't ya just say, you're right, I can't defend them.

Next time if you don't want to read one of my posts, use the scrollbar and just move on by. I write the way I choose to write and don't have any plans to change that any time soon. If it's too wordy for you, tough shit.

lowing wrote:

Also," Sparky", I do not claim to be a Republican conservative. I am more aligned witg libertarian. So the ole GOP is not mine to defend. It just simply at least the GOP isn't full of socialist/communist.

Oh I'm sure you are, sport. You're not the first one I've met like you either. Probably vote straight GOP because "they're not commies" but still complain about their policy moves on immigration and foreign aid, don't really care overmuch about the religious loons trying to steer the party, but you still have plausible deniability invoked by saying "I'm a libertarian".

Oh and honestly, if you think there's more than a half a handful of actual socialists/communists in the DNC, you must've eaten paint chips as a kid. There are genuine socialist and communist parties in the US and none of them would touch the Democrats with a cattle prod.

Ya, "Sport, I sm the one who decided that Clinton and Gore are liberals, the whole world turns to me for such distinctions.


I am sure YOUR policy changes would be nothing less than complete and fair and equal redistribution of the wealth in America. Ya really ain't gotta worry about CHristmas from me "SPort". Although I am sure in your world we would all get the same shit on CHristmas morning anyway, just to be fair and so know one got their feelings hurt.



Thanks "SPORT", for your permission to skip your bullshit whenever I choose, I won't feel so bad now when I do.

Tough shit if you do not think the modern liberal agenda is nothing short of socialism/communism. Redistribution of wealth is one of their intentions. Gotta be fair after all.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ya, "Sport, I sm the one who decided that Clinton and Gore are liberals, the whole world turns to me for such distinctions.

You're right, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have assumed that. Obviously someone had to tell you that they represent the left now since you clearly aren't qualified to figure such things out yourself.

lowing wrote:

I am sure YOUR policy changes would be nothing less than complete and fair and equal redistribution of the wealth in America. Ya really ain't gotta worry about CHristmas from me "SPort". Although I am sure in your world we would all get the same shit on CHristmas morning anyway, just to be fair and so know one got their feelings hurt.

Sorry, you're wrong on that one. I'm not a communist, I lean anarchist. I could care less about wealth redistribution, I'm more concerned with doing away with hierarchical structures in society. Though I suppose to you, we're all just commies because you can't be bothered to figure out otherwise.

lowing wrote:

Thanks "SPORT", for your permission to skip your bullshit whenever I choose, I won't feel so bad now when I do.

You're welcome slick. We wouldn't want you straining anything in your thought goop trying to read all those words, that'd just be a tragedy.

lowing wrote:

Tough shit if you do not think the modern liberal agenda is nothing short of socialism/communism. Redistribution of wealth is one of their intentions. Gotta be fair after all.

Well I realize I just mentioned that I could care fuck-all about wealth redistribution and I also realize that you see the pittance out of your taxes for social services as wealth redistribution yet probably don't give a crap about corporate welfare, so this is mainly for everybody else. If the "liberals" you're so worried about are trying to redistribute wealth, they're doing a better job of letting it go to the all-ready-wealthy than anyone else. Then again, you probably still believe the Reagan era fairy tales of people buying Cadillacs with their food stamps.

Yup "SLICK", I am too stupid to know what Hilary and Gore political affiliation is. I also needed someone tell me that Saturday fell on a weekend. You're an idiot.


Another well thought out post. Anarchism huh? Your liberal buddies can't even function under a structured govt. without big brother holding their hands through life, and now you endorse doing away with govt. all together and expect personal restraint and reponsibility to prevail huh? I guess on Christmas Eve we can just go LOOT all of our presents huh? What color is the sky on your world, "SLICK"?

You bet, reading all of your bullshit is a strain  to the rational thought process, good of you to understand............"SLICK"

Nehhhhhhhhh, "SLICK", of course not!!....Who ever would believe that there are welfare recipients who cheat the system and use their handouts to buy beer and lottery tickets, or have kids just for the extra money that comes with it. Why, that is just as crazy as the notion that Katrina "victims"spent their handouts on strip clubs and big screens. Or squatted on the free hotel rooms and trailers and apartments that the govt. provided. Utter non-sense. Hey, I got an idea, lets do away with govt. and trust that everyone will take responsibility for themselves and contribute to society equally. We can call it........Anarchy!!   

Last edited by lowing (2007-07-11 06:18:47)

Braddock wrote:

America could really do with a third major party ...Conservative Liberals or liberal Conservatives or something! Both parties are so fucked in the ass I'd almost think they were secretly working together to mess up the country.

There are other parties, the only thing that keeps them from being "major" parties, is the lack of votes we the people give them during elections.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

America could really do with a third major party ...Conservative Liberals or liberal Conservatives or something! Both parties are so fucked in the ass I'd almost think they were secretly working together to mess up the country.

There are other parties, the only thing that keeps them from being "major" parties, is the lack of votes we the people give them during elections.

I presumed there were other parties but not a third major party, US politics seems very bipolar. Here in Ireland there are two major parties but it's near impossible to create a one party government, the winning major party almost always has to form a coalition with smaller parties and Independents who then keep the major party in check. We also have many variations on left and right here so you can lean to the left without being a Commie or to the right without being a fascist.

During elections we have countless people running under countless tickets, they just can't break into the big leagues and get support or votes. The people decide what parties are major players. We are just too stuck in a rut to give anyone else a chance.

Turquoise wrote:

For what it's worth though...  it is very sad that what sells best in most media is material that is heavily slanted, whether it's a liberal, conservative, or some other bias.

People are often far more interested in commentary than facts....

Each Slant has their on place.  I find that the forums on some of the sites that I visit are very heavily liberally slanted.  I think the reason that Radio in general is so slanted conservatively is because conservatives listen to the radio.  If Lib's listened to the radio, then Air America would be more successful.  I think each party/side/affiliation whatever needs to stick to where their audience is.  Lib's have the blogs, and most of the news media paper and TV, conservatives have Radio.  I don't think the libs are realizing what Fairness Doctrine would do to a lot of local newspapers, and TV stations, they are only interested in trying to get their hands on the radio audience.

Last edited by Shadovve (2007-07-11 07:45:06)

Oh yeah, I'm definitely an idiot. That's why I don't just accept that Hillary, Bill, Gore, Pelosi, et cetera are "liberal" because some screaming head on the tv or radio told me they are, I actually look at what policy decisions they make and what they endorse, which usually turns out to be either some watered-down bullshit like DADT or it's 180 degrees from what's actually liberal like supporting the Patriot Act or supporting the continuation of the Iraq War. I wish I was smart like you, so I could just ignore what they actually do policy-wise and cling to the convenient labels someone else sticks on them.

lowing wrote:

Another well thought out post. Anarchism huh? Your liberal buddies can't even function under a structured govt. without big brother holding their hands through life, and now you endorse doing away with govt. all together and expect personal restraint and reponsibility to prevail huh? I guess on Christmas Eve we can just go LOOT all of our presents huh? What color is the sky on your world, "SLICK"?

Oh don't worry Mr. Libertarian, your precious property would be safe from all those nasty poor folks since an anarchist society would only be capable of functioning with people who were cooperative instead of antagonistic. Now I hate to inconvenience your obviously ingrained desire for instant gratification, but there's no way humanity would be ready to function without hierarchy tomorrow, next year, twenty or even a hundred years from now. It would require a radically different humanity, whose population right now seems to be outnumbered by people like yourself. You know, those who in the absence of any kind of controlling authority would likely immediately attempt to use force to exert their will on others because they believe in the idea of "might makes right".

lowing wrote:

You bet, reading all of your bullshit is a strain  to the rational thought process, good of you to understand............"SLICK"

Rational thought process, right, gotcha.

lowing wrote:

Nehhhhhhhhh, "SLICK", of course not!!....Who ever would believe that there are welfare recipients who cheat the system and use their handouts to buy beer and lottery tickets, or have kids just for the extra money that comes with it.

Oh I think we know who. Someone who doesn't realize that social services benefits these days are handled by credit card-style swipe cards and that food benefits can only be used for prepackaged unprepared food and cash benefits are usually only for bills or rent. Someone who thinks that because there are a few documented cases of cheats that everyone else on the system must be a cheat. Someone so small and petty that they'd begrudge the small assistance that most people on the system get because of the actions of a few dishonest people.

lowing wrote:

Why, that is just as crazy as the notion that Katrina "victims"spent their handouts on strip clubs and big screens. Or squatted on the free hotel rooms and trailers and apartments that the govt. provided. Utter non-sense.

OMFG, you mean that somewhere, out there in the world, there's dishonest people? Some of whom even take advantage of services for people displaced by natural disasters? Jesus Tapdancing Raptor Christ, someone get this man an anchor position on a major news network, this is Pulitzer Prize material here.

Here we go again. A few people take advantage of the system and suddenly all of them are underserving criminal scum stealing money out of your honest workingman's pocket. And you probably wonder why some of the rest of us think you're more concerned about the contents of your wallet than the contents of your community.

lowing wrote:

Hey, I got an idea, lets do away with govt. and trust that everyone will take responsibility for themselves and contribute to society equally. We can call it........Anarchy!!   

I've got a better idea spanky. Let's do away with government regulations of business and industry and trust that corporations and business owners will take responsibility for their actions even though they continually get caught skirting labor, safety and environmental regulations in order to make a greater profit. Let's do away with social services and let Social Darwinism take its place. Let's get rid of the laws preventing monopolies and believe that we won't see a resurgence of industry barons crushing smaller businesses and stifling innovation. We can call it...   ...well, you all ready know what we can call it don't you?

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Oh yeah, I'm definitely an idiot. That's why I don't just accept that Hillary, Bill, Gore, Pelosi, et cetera are "liberal" because some screaming head on the tv or radio told me they are, I actually look at what policy decisions they make and what they endorse, which usually turns out to be either some watered-down bullshit like DADT or it's 180 degrees from what's actually liberal like supporting the Patriot Act or supporting the continuation of the Iraq War. I wish I was smart like you, so I could just ignore what they actually do policy-wise and cling to the convenient labels someone else sticks on them.

lowing wrote:

Another well thought out post. Anarchism huh? Your liberal buddies can't even function under a structured govt. without big brother holding their hands through life, and now you endorse doing away with govt. all together and expect personal restraint and reponsibility to prevail huh? I guess on Christmas Eve we can just go LOOT all of our presents huh? What color is the sky on your world, "SLICK"?

Oh don't worry Mr. Libertarian, your precious property would be safe from all those nasty poor folks since an anarchist society would only be capable of functioning with people who were cooperative instead of antagonistic. Now I hate to inconvenience your obviously ingrained desire for instant gratification, but there's no way humanity would be ready to function without hierarchy tomorrow, next year, twenty or even a hundred years from now. It would require a radically different humanity, whose population right now seems to be outnumbered by people like yourself. You know, those who in the absence of any kind of controlling authority would likely immediately attempt to use force to exert their will on others because they believe in the idea of "might makes right".

lowing wrote:

You bet, reading all of your bullshit is a strain  to the rational thought process, good of you to understand............"SLICK"

Rational thought process, right, gotcha.

lowing wrote:

Nehhhhhhhhh, "SLICK", of course not!!....Who ever would believe that there are welfare recipients who cheat the system and use their handouts to buy beer and lottery tickets, or have kids just for the extra money that comes with it.

Oh I think we know who. Someone who doesn't realize that social services benefits these days are handled by credit card-style swipe cards and that food benefits can only be used for prepackaged unprepared food and cash benefits are usually only for bills or rent. Someone who thinks that because there are a few documented cases of cheats that everyone else on the system must be a cheat. Someone so small and petty that they'd begrudge the small assistance that most people on the system get because of the actions of a few dishonest people.

lowing wrote:

Why, that is just as crazy as the notion that Katrina "victims"spent their handouts on strip clubs and big screens. Or squatted on the free hotel rooms and trailers and apartments that the govt. provided. Utter non-sense.

OMFG, you mean that somewhere, out there in the world, there's dishonest people? Some of whom even take advantage of services for people displaced by natural disasters? Jesus Tapdancing Raptor Christ, someone get this man an anchor position on a major news network, this is Pulitzer Prize material here.

Here we go again. A few people take advantage of the system and suddenly all of them are underserving criminal scum stealing money out of your honest workingman's pocket. And you probably wonder why some of the rest of us think you're more concerned about the contents of your wallet than the contents of your community.

lowing wrote:

Hey, I got an idea, lets do away with govt. and trust that everyone will take responsibility for themselves and contribute to society equally. We can call it........Anarchy!!   

I've got a better idea spanky. Let's do away with government regulations of business and industry and trust that corporations and business owners will take responsibility for their actions even though they continually get caught skirting labor, safety and environmental regulations in order to make a greater profit. Let's do away with social services and let Social Darwinism take its place. Let's get rid of the laws preventing monopolies and believe that we won't see a resurgence of industry barons crushing smaller businesses and stifling innovation. We can call it...   ...well, you all ready know what we can call it don't you?

Too bad Hillary's voting record does not support your delussions. Deny her all you want to she is a LIBERAL. I will no longer confuse you with facts. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Sorry, "SPANKY", my only concern in society is to have a govt. protect our right to succeed or fail at our leasure. I have no desire to exert my will on anyone, my concern is to NOT have yours excerted on me, through forced excessive govt. social welfare in all of its forms.
I am also pleased, "SPANKY" that you are well aware of the impossible success of a lawless society.  Pretty stupid to support an idea that you know isn't even a viable solution to anything.

It seems we agree, you are wayyyyyyyy to high strung for rationality or reality, you sure you are not a liberal?

Ya right "SPANKY", there are only 2 or 3 cases of welfare abuse or Katrina money abuse. Any chance you are gunna get real during any of these exchanges?

Yup, here is another shocker for ya "Spanky", http://www.snopes.com/katrina/charity/debitcard.asp. Example after example of abuse, and when the "victims" bitched about having to sign an agreement for the debit cards the govt. discontinued the plan and reverted to direct deposits into the "victims" bank accounts. The bitching stopped. Gee I wonder why. Again it would appear that more than 2 or 3 people abused this system as well.

I am concerned about the contents of my wallet as well as the contents of my community. I don't want the leeches of society in my community. If you like them so much, take them back with you to your community.

Well gee whiz, "SPANKY" you do not believe that corporations can govern and regulate themselves any more than the individual can,((neither do I) and you want anarchy for a society??  Brilliant!!. Now, I am sure you are late for what ever on line roll playing game you play, so I will let ya go.

now back to the topic of the thread

Last edited by lowing (2007-07-12 04:31:49)