What should be done about illegal immigration?

respected... you mean like how Hess respected Hitler?

It seemed to me that certain people were unfairly throwing around charges of socialism. Thus, I told a semi-joke that merely pondered whether these people had certain beliefs.

Now the leftists and Democrats are really mad, indeed, so the next target for them is talk radio. Even naive Republicans, such as Trent Lott, are upset, but his naivity was evident years ago. Let the leftists show their true colors, the true socialists, communists, whatever, they are nothing more than rich elitists supported by the likes of George Soros. They do not believe in freedom of the press and never did. Let the fun begin, not that it didn't begin long ago.

The fact that conservatives will take the blame for the status quo... along with the knowledge that the future will bring about the opportunity for a much more liberal compromise... makes this OK.

ebrown_p wrote:

The fact that conservatives will take the blame for the status quo... along with the knowledge that the future will bring about the opportunity for a much more liberal compromise... makes this OK.

I think the reason it failed is largely due to the fact that it was too liberal, ebrown. So if another bill comes down the pike that is more liberal yet, the outcry is going to get louder.

Nice spin, but people are tired of the current laws not being enforced. This is not complicated. No need for new laws that obviously cannot be practically enforced either.

Okie, you are talking about the public airways, so the public does have a say on what they contain. The problem is the concentration in ownership (thanks to the rightwing FCC) of the radio stations, with all, or virtually all, the owners being conservatives. I wager the right would not be very happy were all the stations owned by liberals.

ebrown_p wrote:

The fact that conservatives will take the blame for the status quo... along with the knowledge that the future will bring about the opportunity for a much more liberal compromise... makes this OK.

I think the reason it failed is largely due to the fact that it was too liberal, ebrown. So if another bill comes down the pike that is more liberal yet, the outcry is going to get louder.

Nice spin, but people are tired of the current laws not being enforced. This is not complicated. No need for new laws that obviously cannot be practically enforced either.

Advocate wrote:

Okie, you are talking about the public airways, so the public does have a say on what they contain. The problem is the concentration in ownership (thanks to the rightwing FCC) of the radio stations, with all, or virtually all, the owners being conservatives. I wager the right would not be very happy were all the stations owned by liberals.

Advocate, so we need fairness police overseeing everything on the airways? If so, your news needs lots of balance just for a beginning.

There is nothing unfair about talk radio. Libs have been trying liberal talk radio for years, you ever heard of Ed Schultz, the star? Nobody listens to it because it does not lend itself to logical reasoning and debate. If nobody listens, nobody buys advertising on it. It is a free market place of ideas, and if people wanted to hear leftist ideas discussed, it would compete. The airways are public, but that doesn't mean the government owns them, they only have some regulations over some aspects of it, but they have no constitutional right to limit the freedom of speech.

Right cyclops. Liberals are more emotionally based, while conservatives are more fact based. That is a generalization, but take this bill as an example. Libs want to "do something," never mind that it doesn't work. If they do something, they can feel good that "they did something." They are so taken up with their own importance of coming up with "a bill," then they can feel good that they worked together and accomplished something, never mind the fact that the bill is not worth the paper its written on. Liberals believe in utopia on earth, that government can correct all unfairness and injustice by simply enacting laws, but ignore the reality of reality, that current immigration laws need to be enforced before any more laws are meaningful.

The principle pretty much applies to most issues. Global warming, liberals want to do things like Kyoto, never mind the fact that it does not work. Reality is such a inconvenient thing. When you discuss an issue, usually reality and reasoning gets injected into the conversation, and so liberals lose interest in it. Thus liberal talk radio is a failure. Now, Michael Moore can make a movie using fictitious data, also Gore can make a movie using false data and gain some interest with it, but such films are not successful when opened up to scrutiny using factual data. Dan Rather is another example. Again, talk radio format would not work for them. They would rather do their slanted hit pieces without any opposing views included.

They would rather do their slanted hit pieces without any opposing views included.

okie wrote:

Right cyclops. Liberals are more emotionally based, while conservatives are more fact based. That is a generalization, but take this bill as an example. Libs want to "do something," never mind that it doesn't work. If they do something, they can feel good that "they did something." They are so taken up with their own importance of coming up with "a bill," then they can feel good that they worked together and accomplished something, never mind the fact that the bill is not worth the paper its written on. Liberals believe in utopia on earth, that government can correct all unfairness and injustice by simply enacting laws, but ignore the reality of reality, that current immigration laws need to be enforced before any more laws are meaningful.

The principle pretty much applies to most issues. Global warming, liberals want to do things like Kyoto, never mind the fact that it does not work. Reality is such a inconvenient thing. When you discuss an issue, usually reality and reasoning gets injected into the conversation, and so liberals lose interest in it. Thus liberal talk radio is a failure. Now, Michael Moore can make a movie using fictitious data, also Gore can make a movie using false data and gain some interest with it, but such films are not successful when opened up to scrutiny using factual data. Dan Rather is another example. Again, talk radio format would not work for them. They would rather do their slanted hit pieces without any opposing views included.

How did you miss my point so completely?

You said that Talk Radio, 'Nobody listens to it because it does not lend itself to logical reasoning and debate.' And that's why it is popular amongst Right Wingers: they aren't interested in logical reasoning or debate.

The right wing relies nearly exclusively on emotional arguments to promote its' causes. Terrorism being the deadliest thing on earth? Emotional argument. Illegal aliens destroying our country? Emotional argument. Gays not being allowed to marry? Emotional argument. All of these arguments fail when examined factually, yet the Republicans use these emotional wedges to make their gains.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Right cyclops. Liberals are more emotionally based, while conservatives are more fact based. That is a generalization, but take this bill as an example. Libs want to "do something," never mind that it doesn't work. If they do something, they can feel good that "they did something." They are so taken up with their own importance of coming up with "a bill," then they can feel good that they worked together and accomplished something, never mind the fact that the bill is not worth the paper its written on. Liberals believe in utopia on earth, that government can correct all unfairness and injustice by simply enacting laws, but ignore the reality of reality, that current immigration laws need to be enforced before any more laws are meaningful.

The principle pretty much applies to most issues. Global warming, liberals want to do things like Kyoto, never mind the fact that it does not work. Reality is such a inconvenient thing. When you discuss an issue, usually reality and reasoning gets injected into the conversation, and so liberals lose interest in it. Thus liberal talk radio is a failure. Now, Michael Moore can make a movie using fictitious data, also Gore can make a movie using false data and gain some interest with it, but such films are not successful when opened up to scrutiny using factual data. Dan Rather is another example. Again, talk radio format would not work for them. They would rather do their slanted hit pieces without any opposing views included.

How did you miss my point so completely?

You said that Talk Radio, 'Nobody listens to it because it does not lend itself to logical reasoning and debate.' And that's why it is popular amongst Right Wingers: they aren't interested in logical reasoning or debate.

The right wing relies nearly exclusively on emotional arguments to promote its' causes. Terrorism being the deadliest thing on earth? Emotional argument. Illegal aliens destroying our country? Emotional argument. Gays not being allowed to marry? Emotional argument. All of these arguments fail when examined factually, yet the Republicans use these emotional wedges to make their gains.

Cycloptichorn

No, he said nobody listens to liberal talk-radio because liberal talk-radio doesn't lend itself to logical reasoning and debate. Big difference.

And, he's right.

Look at AirAmerica's ratings.

Charles Krauthammer said it best in Brit Hume's interview:

"The Democrats are in 'Hugo Chavez territory'. This is shutting down opposition radio stations. Where do they plan to go next?"

Quote:

They would rather do their slanted hit pieces without any opposing views included.

You do realize that the entire point of Talk Radio, and of Direct Mail (which was super-sucessful for the Republicans in the 80's), is to be able to disseminate information without the 'traditional media' fact-checking what is said?

Guys like Limbaugh love talk radio b/c they can say whatever the hell they want, and if it isn't true, so what? They aren't going to lose their job and they don't have to answer to anyone.

You have this whole thing completely backwards, seriously.

Cycloptichorn