Jump to content

Leftists Crushed in School Boards Across Florida


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, reason10 said:

At times, I look at the alleged culture war the way AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN Rush Limbaugh did. He laughed at it. He led the country at laughing at it, especially the idiot liberals who were coming so unglued because they no longer had a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. Liberals do not like losing arguments or being laughed at. They are particularly funny in those regards.

Careful...that's another observation of the obvious. Mikey tends to want cites for those.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

See, that's another one of those, "cite how water is wet" demands you insist on making. They're silly. After you've seen a few they're not worth responding to.

Sorry - you are responding to me so you must at least respect that I am making an honest request here.  What is being asserted is, basically, that 'leftists' which likely in this context means Democrats, Liberals and left... want to nationalize media.

Edit: Maybe not asserting directly but implying at least....

Yes, it raises my eyebrows.

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

 

1. I saw Cronkite cry on the air. It's called eyewitness testimony. I remember the broadcast.  

2. During the monopoly period of the media (pre Foxnews), it was pretty much on the left wing, and at times the extreme left wing. Cronkite was a vitriolic left winger.

3. I didn't pick a single crime to indict the concept of gender less school bathrooms. The father of the rape victim did that. He was right in blaming the bathroom policy for that. But I suppose I should ask you a simple question: How many rapes of children have to happen before it becomes important?

4.  As far as you suggesting that a mainstream conservative believes the Democrat Party is criminal and should be banned, I'll wait patiently while you find exact quotes from me suggesting that.  

5. The American economy was NEVER expanded by a Democrat president.

6. The greatest economies in America took place as a result of Republicans like Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush43 and Trump.  Those are opinions and you'll have to learn to deal with the fact that they differ from your opinions.

 

1. Well given his aforementioned fame, you should be able to find it referred to somewhere ?  I know he seemed to cry when announcing JFK's death but not Vietnam.   It really doesn't matter though.
2. Only through today's cracked lens.  Since there's no editorial content, or if there was it was managed via the Fairness Doctrine, we only have subjective views on such a thing.  Lots of left wingers were blacklisted and prohibited from participating in films and media, though, and this is well known.  Is there a right wing equivalent ?  Maybe for Nazis I guess.
3. I already said this is irrelevant to the topic so I'm not engaging.  Start a separate thread on school safety I guess.
4. Hmmm you are asking me for cites ?  Did you provide all the ones I asked for yet ?   I think people are suggesting democracy isn't a good idea anymore such as this guy
5. You're saying that every Democrat president has seen a recession over his term.  I don't have to ask for a cite to know that's nonsense.
6. Eisenhower lorded over a major state apparatus that included astronomical tax rates and strong social programming by government.  I guess that was before your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well given his aforementioned fame, you should be able to find it referred to somewhere ?  I know he seemed to cry when announcing JFK's death but not Vietnam.   It really doesn't matter though.
2. Only through today's cracked lens.  Since there's no editorial content, or if there was it was managed via the Fairness Doctrine, we only have subjective views on such a thing.  Lots of left wingers were blacklisted and prohibited from participating in films and media, though, and this is well known.  Is there a right wing equivalent ?  Maybe for Nazis I guess.
3. I already said this is irrelevant to the topic so I'm not engaging.  Start a separate thread on school safety I guess.
4. Hmmm you are asking me for cites ?  Did you provide all the ones I asked for yet ?   I think people are suggesting democracy isn't a good idea anymore such as this guy
5. You're saying that every Democrat president has seen a recession over his term.  I don't have to ask for a cite to know that's nonsense.
6. Eisenhower lorded over a major state apparatus that included astronomical tax rates and strong social programming by government.  I guess that was before your time.

I'll try to respond to the points where I can, where it will be relevant.

2. I see no cracked lens, either today or in the last century. The Fairness Doctrine was an assault on the First Amendment. One of the many great things President Reagan did for America was to veto that Nazi bill when it came up through Congress. We either have a Constitution or we don't. And the Fairness Doctrine was Affirmative Action quotas for the left. It has no place in a free society.

4. If at all possible, I'd just as soon not have to spend discussion time looking for cites. They are (most of the time) no more reliable than our actual opinions. There are plenty of hard left communists sites who will justify even child rape. Basically, looking to cite an opinion to me is less valuable than the opinions of the person I'm communicating with.

5. I actually NO Democrat president ever expanded the economy. I'll temper that remark with the ONE who did:John F. Kennedy, whose supply side TAX CUTS caused the Sixties economy to skyrocket. The policies of all the other Democrats (and a couple of liberal Republicans) did the very opposite to the economy.

6. I'm thinking (and this is really off the beaten path) that Eisenhower's greatest contribution to the economy was his winning World War Two. All those soldiers came home, all wanting jobs, all wanting homes, all wanting to consume. Yes, he expanded government, gave us an interstate highway system. (I was born two years before he was reelected.)

 

It might surprise you to know that the truly most LIBERAL president of all time, the one who truly did the most damage to our economy (and that includes Clinton, Obama and Biden) was a RINO named Richard Nixon. He had a liberal record that even THE SQUAD would envy.

And that record probably is worth a thread of its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Careful...that's another observation of the obvious. Mikey tends to want cites for those.

It's possible to get cites to prove the morality of child rape, if you search the Internet long enough. I'm still trying to figure out why cites even matter. On the right, we'll look at a left wing cite as left wing biased. On the left, they'll look at a right wing cite as right wing biased. The person I'm discussing and debating the issue is right in front of me. I'm ready to trust that source as far as his/her opinion is concerned.

I have some sources and I'll share them when they are needed to clarify things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry - you are responding to me so you must at least respect that I am making an honest request here.  What is being asserted is, basically, that 'leftists' which likely in this context means Democrats, Liberals and left... want to nationalize media.

Edit: Maybe not asserting directly but implying at least....

Yes, it raises my eyebrows.

Not necessarily the wording I would use. Maybe not "nationalize" the media. The Fairness Doctrine came probably closest enough to that goal.

Left wingers hate FoxNews, for sure. Whenever a left winger loses an argument, it's always ("Quit watching Fox news, or Quit watching Faux News") I noticed left wingers do not say quit watching Breitbart, or OneAmerica, or Newsmax. (True conservative biased networks. ) For some reason, the war is on FoxNews, which gives equal time to both sides of the aisle.

Frankly, I find the knock down drag out ideological fights liberals and conservatives engage in to be very healthy for a culture. The cure for speech you don't like is MORE free speech.

The only problem is when liberals get anywhere near decision making power in government. They do nothing but damage when that happens. Rush Limbaugh used to say that liberals were hilarious and a riot when they are out of power.  They are truly dangerous when they are in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

1. I see no cracked lens, either today or in the last century. The Fairness Doctrine was an assault on the First Amendment. One of the many great things President Reagan did for America was to veto that Nazi bill when it came up through Congress.

2. We either have a Constitution or we don't. And the Fairness Doctrine was Affirmative Action quotas for the left. It has no place in a free society.

3. If at all possible, I'd just as soon not have to spend discussion time looking for cites. They are (most of the time) no more reliable than our actual opinions.

4. I actually NO Democrat president ever expanded the economy. I'll temper that remark with the ONE who did:John F. Kennedy, whose supply side TAX CUTS caused the Sixties economy to skyrocket. The policies of all the other Democrats (and a couple of liberal Republicans) did the very opposite to the economy.

5. It might surprise you to know that the truly most LIBERAL president of all time, the one who truly did the most damage to our economy (and that includes Clinton, Obama and Biden) was a RINO named Richard Nixon. He had a liberal record that even THE SQUAD would envy.

1. Not sure what you are talking about.  Reagan ?  It was in place since the early television era.  You use the term Nazi but the framers saw the effect that Hitler had when unencumbered and unchallenged speeches from him were broadcast directly into German homes when he was coming up.

2. So you think the FCC should be disbanded ?  Deregulate all communication ?  That's more libertarian than conservative but ok.

3. Fair enough.  I will just reject your claim then, when I don't believe it.  Feel free to do the same.  If you want to follow the board guidelines instead, please do let me know.

4.  Ok.   Well... let's start with this graph in response then:

gdp-and-real-gdp-united-states-1930-2019

5. I'm aware of Nixon's record.  A true conservative cares about the environment and he established the EPA also consumer protections etc.  not to mention his diplomatic coup in China.  He was a great president.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, reason10 said:

1. Left wingers hate FoxNews, for sure.
2. Frankly, I find the knock down drag out ideological fights liberals and conservatives engage in to be very healthy for a culture.
3. The cure for speech you don't like is MORE free speech.
4. The only problem is when liberals get anywhere near decision making power in government. They do nothing but damage when that happens.
5. Rush Limbaugh used to say that liberals were hilarious and a riot when they are out of power.   

1. No argument.
2. I disagree.  Major problems are ignored because they are reduced to political and culture fights.  The environment and economy are not discussed in detail because, frankly, it's too boring.  It's great for a population that can't get enough of yelling and put-downs though.
3. Network TV is not free speech.  Do you have billions and years to put together a network to counter CNN and FOX ?
4. Why don't you just make the Democratic party illegal ?  It sounds like there is no good in them at all.
5. Do you follow any serious political discussion or just insult comics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No argument.
2. I disagree.  Major problems are ignored because they are reduced to political and culture fights.  The environment and economy are not discussed in detail because, frankly, it's too boring.  It's great for a population that can't get enough of yelling and put-downs though.
3. Network TV is not free speech.  Do you have billions and years to put together a network to counter CNN and FOX ?
4. Why don't you just make the Democratic party illegal ?  It sounds like there is no good in them at all.
5. Do you follow any serious political discussion or just insult comics?

This is constructive. Numbered points.

2. The economy is not discussed enough? Excuse me? We are in the worst economy of all time ONLY because of the Executive orders of an unelected racist pedophile named Joe. We are experiencing misery not seen since World War II. It's all anyone is talking about.

Not discussing the environment? The most liberal president in history (Richard Nixon) signed the EPA act in to law. Since then, air and water have been noticeably cleaner, at least in the United States.

3. I agree as far as network TV not being free speech. ABC, CBS, NBC, are all left wing shills with ZERO consideration for any points of view that counter their woke nonsense. But for now there is a free market in news. There is a marketplace of ideas. Albeit it had been operating with the far left controlling it before the late 80s when Rush Limbaugh burst upon the scene and single handedly ended the monopoly. Thing is, free speech is different from getting your opinions across. You can say whatever you want in the privacy of your own home (for today). But you have to pay to sell your hard left Woke agenda. Today, CNN is paying a lot of money and losing a lot of money trying to move a hard left Woke agenda that most of America doesn't want.

4. You asked earlier why I don't suggest making the Democrat Party illegal. That's like asking why not make herpes, AIDS, venereal disease, mugging, car jacking, war, illegal. Making something legal or illegal is just a matter of passing a law and creating paper that suggest illegality. Murder is illegal and yet blue states have the highest murder rates in the world. Certain controlled substances are illegal, and yet they can be obtained in PRISON.

At some point, you are going to have to turn your extremist vision to a more moderate approach to life. I can disagree with a person and not wish him/her dead. Disagreeing with the views and the history of the Democrat party does not automatically translate into wishing for its legal dissolution. I disagree with most of your views but I don't want you dead, kicked out of the country, etc. That's just childish in nature.

5. This question indeed suggests you are lucky enough to be very young. (or at least have a young, immature brain.) The fact that I am here at this forum giving my opinion is proof that I follow what YOU PEOPLE would consider serious (if not intelligent at times) political discussion. By the same token, life is too short to spend your whole days goose stepping without having a laugh. The thing that triggered you left wingers into murderous rage, beginning in the late 80s was people like Rush Limbaugh leading the country in laughing at you.

Don't like it? Think back to those left wing SNL videos that trashed Republican figures. Relax. Life is too short to take yourself too seriously, especially when no one else is.

Edited by reason10
fix punctuation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not sure what you are talking about.  Reagan ?  It was in place since the early television era.  You use the term Nazi but the framers saw the effect that Hitler had when unencumbered and unchallenged speeches from him were broadcast directly into German homes when he was coming up.

2. So you think the FCC should be disbanded ?  Deregulate all communication ?  That's more libertarian than conservative but ok.

3. Fair enough.  I will just reject your claim then, when I don't believe it.  Feel free to do the same.  If you want to follow the board guidelines instead, please do let me know.

4.  Ok.   Well... let's start with this graph in response then:

gdp-and-real-gdp-united-states-1930-2019

5. I'm aware of Nixon's record.  A true conservative cares about the environment and he established the EPA also consumer protections etc.  not to mention his diplomatic coup in China.  He was a great president.  

1. When I use the term Nazi, it describes both ideology and tactics. The Hitler Nazi model is practically a mirror image of the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer ploy. Our Constitution is the only barrier to having people who disagree with you put into camps, although FDR came pretty close with those internment camps. National Socialism, whether it has a Charlie Chaplin mustache or kneels during the National Anthem at football games is still National Socialism.

2. I agree with free speech and reject anti First Amendment legislation such as the Fairness Doctrine and suddenly I'm against the FCC? That's very extreme. I never suggested getting rid of ANY government bureau (although, and this is fodder for a thread of its own,  I would dump the Department of Education and the Department of Energy in a New York minute, since they both are useless wastes of taxpayer dollars.) Your extremism is starting to make me look like a moderate, and I'm not really used to how that feels. I have certain strong views about free market capitalism, liberty and the rule of law and your extremism is making me look like a centrist. That's really strange.

3. Certainly will save a lot of time. I'm not saying that I'll never provide a link, if I think it will help. (usually at the beginning of a thread.) But I'm not going to wag my finger at you and demand a link if you disagree with my argument.

4. Your graph (and anyone can create a graph) suggests the economy is larger today than 1929. Not a hard case to make. The American population is larger than 1929, and Roosevelts war succeeded in lowering that population. What the graph doesn't show is the damage Democrat (and NIxon) policies have done to the country's economy.

5. I don't think you know what Nixon did to the country. Most people don't know. When we were dealing with the gas lines back in the early Seventies, and later on the runaway inflation that eroded the value of the American dollar, the ONLY source which correctly linked Nixon to all that misery was "The Seven Fat Years, And How To Do It Again" by Robert Bartley. (a Wall Street Journal editor).

Nixon took the world off the Bretton Woods standard. OPEC nations warned him not to do that. Why? Because ALL oil is traded in American dollars. (The American dollar is the reserve currency of the world, and that's the reason why from the 80s to day Americans weren't paying $5 a gallon for gasoline, unlike European countries.) NIxon's ONE action eroded the value of the America dollar. Then he signed the Budget And Impoundment Act, which created baseline budgeting for federal transfer payments (they are called Entitlements today). Because of that, the two elements of inflation (too many dollars....chasing too few goods) were turned loose on an unsuspecting society. And I can remember when BOTH political parties were campaigning against inflation without ANY idea what it was and what caused it. I remember the Gerald Ford WIN buttons (Whip Inflation Now). Of course, it was President Reagan who rolled back discretionary spending and allowed his Fed Chairman to wring inflation out of our lives.

Today,  entitlements make up around 75 percent of the federal budget. I don't blame Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or Barak Obama for that. I blame the original architect Richard Nixon, as does "The Seven Fat Years."

And Joe has succeeded in bringing back all the elements of Nixonflation. (His trillion dollar "stimulus" spending, the supply chain crisis, the war on domestic energy.) Joe has just about outdone Nixon when it comes to destroying a national economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, reason10 said:

1. The economy is not discussed enough? Excuse me? We are in the worst economy of all time ONLY because of the Executive orders of an unelected racist pedophile named Joe. We are experiencing misery not seen since World War II. It's all anyone is talking about.

2. Not discussing the environment? The most liberal president in history (Richard Nixon) signed the EPA act in to law. Since then, air and water have been noticeably cleaner, at least in the United States.

3. But you have to pay to sell your hard left Woke agenda...

4. You asked earlier why I don't suggest making the Democrat Party illegal. That's like asking why not make herpes, AIDS, venereal disease, mugging, car jacking, war, illegal. 

5. Disagreeing with the views and the history of the Democrat party does not automatically translate into wishing for its legal dissolution.  

6. This question indeed suggests you are lucky enough to be very young. (or at least have a young, immature brain.) The fact that I am here at this forum giving my opinion is proof that I follow what YOU PEOPLE would consider serious  

 

37 minutes ago, reason10 said:

7. When I use the term Nazi, it describes both ideology and tactics. The Hitler Nazi model is practically a mirror image of the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer ploy.

8.National Socialism, whether it has a Charlie Chaplin mustache or kneels during the National Anthem at football games is still National Socialism.

9. I agree with free speech and reject anti First Amendment legislation such as the Fairness Doctrine and suddenly I'm against the FCC? That's very extreme.

10. I never suggested getting rid of ANY government bureau (although, and this is fodder for a thread of its own,  I would dump the Department of Education and the Department of Energy in a New York minute, since they both are useless wastes of taxpayer dollars.)

11. Your extremism is starting to make me look like a moderate, and I'm not really used to how that feels. I have certain strong views about free market capitalism, liberty and the rule of law and your extremism is making me look like a centrist. That's really strange.

12. Your graph (and anyone can create a graph) suggests the economy is larger today than 1929. Not a hard case to make.  

13. I don't think you know what Nixon did to the country. Most people don't know. When we were dealing with the gas lines back in the early Seventies, and later on the runaway inflation that eroded the value of the American dollar ... Today,  entitlements make up around 75 percent of the federal budget. I don't blame Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or Barak Obama for that. I blame the original architect Richard Nixon, as does "The Seven Fat Years."

14. And Joe has succeeded in bringing back all the elements of Nixonflation. (His trillion dollar "stimulus" spending, the supply chain crisis, the war on domestic energy.) Joe has just about outdone Nixon when it comes to destroying a national economy.

1.  I didn't say that, I said it wasn't discussed "in detail".  Your attribution of the global economic collapse to Biden is evidence that you are succumbing to the culture war lens in looking at our problems.
2. Again.... "in detail"
3. You missed my point.  "Free Speech" is a separate issue from owning the infrastructure of a TV network.  As for 'selling woke'... FOX is doing a good job of selling anti-woke so...
4. In other words, if you COULD make the Democrat party illegal you would do so, am I right ?
5. And yet, you are indeed part way there, because you equated them to disease ?
6. Well, I do consider most posters on here more serious than the insult comic Limbaugh.  Although your seriousness is in question to me when you namecall me as "immature".  I am taking you seriously and trying to get to any principles that you have at your core, sidestepping the culture war pap that you are recycling through your posts.
7. Calling contemporary politicians, like Democrats, Nazis is not serious commentary.  And you conveniently stepped past my question of why you attributed the Fairness Doctrine to the 1980s instead of the 1940s/50s.
8. Culture war garbage again.  I saw  Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" in a room with a real projector decades ago.  Anyone who saw that wouldn't make these assertions.
9. Um.  The FCC INTRODUCED the Fairness doctrine.  So you hate the Fairness Doctrine and think it's "Nazi" and yet you are ok with the FCC.  Your mangled view of history makes it necessary to ask such questions, sorry.  The Fairness Doctrine required that a TV network give fair time to both sides of a controversial issue.  No, the Nazis did not do that in case you were wondering.
10.  Ok so now you HAVE suggested dumping two major government departments and...
11.   ... you call me an extremist even though you namecall me as 'woke' etc.  Equate the Democratic party to a disease and suggest disbanding the department of Education.  Ok then.
12. Yes, that is obvious, but where are the dips in the graph when Democrats were president as was your claim.  I really need you to respond to this point because I am discussing with you in good faith and will happily admit any mistakes of fact.  So I need you to do the same in a friendly and respectful argument.
13. I acknowledge your assertion here.
14. Weirdly I have never met a Republican (are you one?) who was so against Nixon.  Anyway, I don't know about Nixon's stimulus package - please tell me more.

-----

You have a lot of opinions and knowledge but I only allocate so much time to this forum.  For our discussion to continue constructively, I ask you to commit to not calling me names (eg. woke, immature, etc.) and to acknowlege your mistakes when you make them.  After all, there seems to be at least a modicum of respect for you to put so much effort in posting to me.  

Thanks for the post, it's food for thought.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm aware of Nixon's record.  A true conservative cares about the environment and he established the EPA also consumer protections etc.  not to mention his diplomatic coup in China.  He was a great president.  

LOL...Look who's talking about true conservatives. Why it's Gran'pa Libbie shill...LOL.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just need to remind people that the fairness doctrine was introduced in 1949, not after 1980 in the Reagan era.

It provided a fair hearing to opposite views, especially conservatives who weren't heard on controversial issues.  This is the enactment of faith in the institution of debate and discussion, including intellectual honesty.

Dishonest people troll, post disinformation and never retract their posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I just need to remind people that the fairness doctrine was introduced in 1949, not after 1980 in the Reagan era.

It provided a fair hearing to opposite views, especially conservatives who weren't heard on controversial issues.  This is the enactment of faith in the institution of debate and discussion, including intellectual honesty.

Dishonest people troll, post disinformation and never retract their posts.

I never said the Fairness Doctrine was introduced during the Reagan era. I said it was abolished by a Reagan veto. Try to keep up with the class here, lib.

And wanna hear an example of the goose stepping nature of the Fairness Doctrine?

During the Reagan/Carter race, Ronald Reagan's movies were taken off the air. The reason? Because Carter didn't have any movies so the Fairness Doctrine somehow thought it wasn't fair. Imagine that! A peanut farmer who was a disaster to the state of Georgia and a disaster to the United States somehow was at a disadvantage because of Bedtime For Bonzo movies.

I remember when that took place. Several years after Reagan was elected in a landslide, I read (probably in the Wall Street Journal) that the idiotic Fairness Doctrine was responsible.

Earth to IDIOTS. The marketplace of ideas does NOT need a fairness doctrine. It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT, and there's nothing in it about having to be fair to both sides of any issue.

Today, Foxnews represents fairness and equal time to both sides of the aisle. There are other news companies moving up and ready to compete with Fox. (Newsmax, Breitbart, OneAmerica.) The competition is healthy. It forces everyone competing to up their game and be more competitive.

It's obvious why fake news rags like CNN,  PMSNBC, et al are losing market share.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,802
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    applegrove
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Mathieub earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mathieub earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Old Guy went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Mathieub earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Chrissy1979 earned a badge
      Posting Machine
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...