|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"The New York Times challenged (link)"
 |
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-02-02, 07:38 AM (EST)
 
  |
|
2. "RE: The New York Times challenged (link)" |
Always can count on SD to have the thought provoking article early in the dayDelighted to be of service, as ever.  As a member of the media, I can tell you, we have no standards, we have no credibility. And we like it that way. The humor of your comment aside, perhaps you can give us some "inside" perspective on these issues. I'm not sure where you are in the Media food chain, but it would be interesting to hear about it from another angle. I'd certainly enjoy hearing it, anyway. 
"All of us necessarily hold many casual opinions that are ludicrously wrong simply because life is far too short for us to think through even a small fraction of the topics that we come across. -- Julian Simon Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-02-02, 12:14 PM (EST)
|
|
4. "RE: Howell Raines" |
N.B. If the NYT wasn't in the middle of a national expansion, I'm not sure that the rest of this commentary would be happening.I think it would be happening because of the "crusader" turn the NYT has taken. Not only that, but they're the "leader" of the liberal media establishment, along with the Washington Post, L.A. Times, and AP wire service; therefore, they have a big target on their back (a target for the conservatives and Rush Limbaugh, et. al.). But you might be right in that they increased their vulnerability by their actions in the national arena.
"All of us necessarily hold many casual opinions that are ludicrously wrong simply because life is far too short for us to think through even a small fraction of the topics that we come across. -- Julian Simon Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-02-02, 11:09 PM (EST)
|
|
7. "OK, OK" |
All right, that's not really true.To start with, I believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to further the principles of its founders and encourage self-determination throughout the world. There are two fundamental prongs to this. One is the right to elect your leaders democratically -- no truce with kings! The other is the right to live free of repression, including repression from the majority. That generally doesn't give us the right to overthrow a democratically-elected leader, even a democratically-elected tyrant like Hugo Chavez (remember, Hitler was originally democratically elected as well), but it does mean that we should not be in the business of supporting dictators, even pro-American dictators. We also need to be a little careful in this area, because we have often fallen far short of this goal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't push for it. Note that this was part of Jimmy Carter's 1976 platform, but Carter may well be the president who most failed to live up to this. Is this cultural imperialism? Damn straight. So what? I believe that the U.S. has too great a share of the world's wealth. However, my solution to that is to encourage other countries' economies to grow more. The solution is to increase the size of the pie, not to whine about overconsumption ... or try to impoverish other countries by trade restrictions to protect union jobs. In the same vein, I support looser standards for immigration to the U.S. -- but stronger requirements for citizenship. If you've lived in this country for 10 years, you'd have to either qualify for U.S. citizenship of leave forever. Period. There are plenty of people who want to become U.S. citizens and would support the principles upon which the U.S. was founded. Why should we make a space for people who don't want to be part of our society? I believe that everyone should have the right to behave however they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. Of course, this qualifier is the root of many problems, and my interpretations here put me far outside of the Republican mainstream (for example, I'm pro-choice and I favor full marital rights for same-sex couples, not just "civil unions"). But, since I'm not running for office, I don't need to give all my positions, do I?
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-03-02, 06:29 AM (EST)
|
|
10. "RE: OK, OK" |
LAST EDITED ON 12-03-02 AT 06:36 AM (EST)I believe that the U.S. has too great a share of the world's wealth Warning! Danger, Will Robinson! The problem with this sentence is that you're assigning the wealth to the nation, to the gonvernment. The wealth belongs to the PEOPLE WHO HAVE EARNED IT!. It is NOT the Government's money (this is what the Liberals believe), it belongs to YOU (the person that earned it). Therefore, it's not the United States that has the great share of the wealth in the world, but the PEOPLE of the USA who have that wealth... and it leads to the question "Now why do you suppose that all these wealthy people are HERE (in the USA) and not elsewhere?" However, my solution to that is to encourage other countries' economies to grow more. The solution is to increase the size of the pie, not to whine about overconsumption I agree with you here, AyaK, and would like to point out that this is another philosophical difference with Liberals: Republicans (and conservatives in general) believe that the pie can and does get bigger, that anyone who works and achieves can earn a slice of that pie, and actually help make it even bigger for more people (in the form of jobs). To hear Gephardt, Daschle, and Mrs. Clinton talk, it's a zero-sum game, the pie can't get bigger, and anyone who is rich is depriving someone else of being rich. In the same vein, I support looser standards for immigration to the U.S. -- but stronger requirements for citizenship. If you've lived in this country for 10 years, you'd have to either qualify for U.S. citizenship of leave forever. Period. There are plenty of people who want to become U.S. citizens and would support the principles upon which the U.S. was founded. Why should we make a space for people who don't want to be part of our society? If we REALLY protected our borders and stopped immigration, you'd see the devastation to the economy right quickly. I agree that immigration should be as open as possible (with checks to keep the terrorists out  ), but I think the citizenship requirements are okay as they are. I don't want to deport someone for not becoming a citizen, either, as long as they behave and continue to contribute to society. However, I do believe that non-citizens should have NO welfare rights, NO unemployment rights and receive NO benefits from the Federal or state governments unless they're paying their taxes. There's a lot more philosophical discussion that can be derived from this, but I'll leave it for a future time. I believe that everyone should have the right to behave however they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. Of course, this qualifier is the root of many problems, and my interpretations here put me far outside of the Republican mainstream (for example, I'm pro-choice and I favor full marital rights for same-sex couples, not just "civil unions"). I also believe in the "your rights end where my nose begin", which is why I am an ardent anti-smoking person (you should NOT be allowed to smoke where the smoke can burn my eyes or nose, unless you're on YOUR OWN PROPERTY!). I believe that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, as long as it's consentual and doesn't involve minor children. I do have some limitations about it: I don't think people should be allowed to hurt themselves (like a case I once read where a woman LIKED being beaten up during sex, having her fingers broken, etc. I have a problem considering that to be her "right".) I am also fully pro-abortion (not just pro-choice, but pro-abortion. The position that a fetus has an immortal, communicable soul the moment the man has the woman's bra unhooked is totally anathema to me.). I'll refrain from discussing same-sex "group rights" here, as I'd just rather not light the powder keg Oops, I probably just did, anyway. (Before hitting reply, be it noted that my objection here is to the concept of "group rights" over "indivdual rights". Rights can only be assigned to individuals; once "groups" start having "rights", then discrimination exists and the fabric of society tatters like an old carpet. Also, see my above comment about what you do in the privacy of your bedroom, etc.)
"All of us necessarily hold many casual opinions that are ludicrously wrong simply because life is far too short for us to think through even a small fraction of the topics that we come across. -- Julian Simon Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
12-03-02, 06:14 AM (EST)
|
|
9. "RE: Howell Raines" |
Wouldn't it be more interesting if the conservatives and Rush Limbaugh et al put their energy into acting as proponents of their own positions instead of shooting at those who disagree?I think the Conservatives, particularly the Republicans, *DO* act as proponents of their own positions, whereas the Democrats are the ones who attack the Republicans rather than define their (Dems) positions. For proof of this, a shining example was the Election of 2002. Rush Limbaugh absolutely points out Democratic positions and why those positions are harmful to freedom in the Nation, but he often does this by contrasting the Democratic position with the Republican position, thus being a proponent of the Republican position. Time and again I have heard Rush describe and support the Republican position. Rush also rails against Republicans when they (Republicans) stray leftward of the correct path.
Contradictions don't exist. If you are faced with a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
|
Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
