Jump to content

A Couple More Dictators Taken Down A Peg!


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dictators?  Limbaugh isn't a dictator, just a loud-mouth bigot.

 

Dictators use force. The astonishing  part is that all of his listeners are actually choosing to listen to him.

 

I do have to admit that I used to listen to him for a while myself in the early 90's when I was in my late teens/early 20's.  My views have evolved since then.  I'd still listen to him in the late 90's, because no one would go after Clinton like he would and I quite enjoyed that, even if I did hold many of his views to be appalling.  Once Bush II was elected however I could no longer listen to him, and after 9/11 I could no longer listen to any conservative talk radio at all.  Just a bunch of blood thirsty, flag waving, bigots looking to murder darker-skinned people who talk funny and live far away.  Good for the boycotters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dictators?  Limbaugh isn't a dictator, just a loud-mouth bigot.

 

Dictators use force. The astonishing  part is that all of his listeners are actually choosing to listen to him.

 

I do have to admit that I used to listen to him for a while myself in the early 90's when I was in my late teens/early 20's.  My views have evolved since then.  I'd still listen to him in the late 90's, because no one would go after Clinton like he would and I quite enjoyed that, even if I did hold many of his views to be appalling.  Once Bush II was elected however I could no longer listen to him, and after 9/11 I could no longer listen to any conservative talk radio at all.  Just a bunch of blood thirsty, flag waving, bigots looking to murder darker-skinned people who talk funny and live far away.  Good for the boycotters.

 

He has an 8 yr, $400m contract (with Clear Channel, signed in 2008).

 

I think he just realizes that there are haters in this country and he gives them what they like to listen to.  He isn't the only one, just listen to the presidential candidates wanting to limit freedoms for homosexuals.

 

I guess it sells -- hate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could no longer listen to any conservative talk radio at all.  Just a bunch of blood thirsty, flag waving, bigots looking to murder darker-skinned people who talk funny and live far away.  Good for the boycotters.

 

Whew!  Looks like radio isn't the only place one can find over-the-top generalizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dictators?  Limbaugh isn't a dictator, just a loud-mouth bigot.

 

Dictators use force. The astonishing  part is that all of his listeners are actually choosing to listen to him.

 

I do have to admit that I used to listen to him for a while myself in the early 90's when I was in my late teens/early 20's.  My views have evolved since then.  I'd still listen to him in the late 90's, because no one would go after Clinton like he would and I quite enjoyed that, even if I did hold many of his views to be appalling.  Once Bush II was elected however I could no longer listen to him, and after 9/11 I could no longer listen to any conservative talk radio at all.  Just a bunch of blood thirsty, flag waving, bigots looking to murder darker-skinned people who talk funny and live far away.  Good for the boycotters.

 

Same here. I would occasionally listen to him years ago, and some of his arguments were well thought.  But then, he developed a harsh edge.  Then worse.  Then, over the top.

 

Rush is an apropos nickname considering his reported drug use.  Could that be related to his rages?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One advertiser, Carbonite (CARB) , is down 9.5% since Mondays's withdraw of their radio ads to "ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”    Lets see how long this interest in civility lasts in the face of falling revenues. 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/investors-flee-carbonite-after-limbaugh-announcement/#ixzz1oPzzWTUi

 

Note to CEO's: Inserting your company into a heated political debate is destructive to shareholders and a no_win situation!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One advertiser, Carbonite (CARB) , is down 9.5% since Mondays's withdraw of their radio ads to "ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”    Lets see how long this interest in civility lasts in the face of falling revenues. 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/investors-flee-carbonite-after-limbaugh-announcement/#ixzz1oPzzWTUi

 

Note to CEO's: Inserting your company into a heated political debate is destructive to shareholders and a no_win situation!

Onyx1,

 

        To be frank, this particular company is losing $1.84 per share. So the price decline may not have anything to do with the CEO's pulling ads.

 

          There are 29 companies who withdrew their ads, if on the average they did fall more than the benchmark index(es), then I will buy your argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could no longer listen to any conservative talk radio at all.  Just a bunch of blood thirsty, flag waving, bigots looking to murder darker-skinned people who talk funny and live far away.  Good for the boycotters.

 

Whew!  Looks like radio isn't the only place one can find over-the-top generalizations.

 

OK, I'll be more specific.  Any show I've tried to listen to, both nationally syndicated and local to the Boston radio market has hosts that fit that description.  I have no idea if EVERY conservative talk radio host is a blood-thirsty bigot.

But judging by the candidates in the Rep. Primary.  The only one not looking to continue the old wars and anxious to start a new war or two is widely referred to as "unelectable" simply because he lacks the blood-lust needed to be a Republican presidential candidate.  Not to pick on republicans too much. After all Obama is every bit as much of a war criminal as BushII.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing I love about these boards is the great investment information and advice about value investing.

 

The one thing I hate is the political discussions. It's just opinion after opinion after opinion.

 

Perhaps Sanjeev could start a "Polictical" category for those discussions?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing I love about these boards is the great investment information and advice about value investing.

The one thing I hate is the political discussions. It's just opinion after opinion after opinion.

Perhaps Sanjeev could start a "Polictical" category for those discussions?

 

Fortunately you don't need to read threads on any message board which don't interest you.

You are correct however that all political discussions are nothing but opinions.  Unfortunately political opinions are not harmless like "I think sunsets are nice", rather they are opinions backed up by the violence of the state.  More like "we're going to steal half of everything you earn then use it to build weapons to slaughter people oversees and there is nothing you can do about it".  Oh wait, you can vote.  What a joke.  A sick joke with massive piles of bodies as its punch line.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the reason for the joy about this ginned up controversy?

 

And "He isn't the only one, just listen to the presidential candidates wanting to limit freedoms for homosexuals." - who is saying what, and which freedoms are they limiting on people who happen to be homosexual? And are they any different from President Obama's views?

 

Just wondering. If the reasons given make sense, maybe it will be a thread worth reading. Otherwise, it will just be someone opining about politics, even though this is SUPPOSED to be an investing forum.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could no longer listen to any conservative talk radio at all.  Just a bunch of blood thirsty, flag waving, bigots looking to murder darker-skinned people who talk funny and live far away.  Good for the boycotters.

 

Whew!  Looks like radio isn't the only place one can find over-the-top generalizations.

 

Realizing that people like Limbaugh were about to light a powder keg about the Muslim peril after the 9/11 attacks, we should all be eternally grateful that President George W. Bush threw cold water on that xenophobic fuse with his measured response focusing on the terrorists and not innocent coreligionists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And "He isn't the only one, just listen to the presidential candidates wanting to limit freedoms for homosexuals." - who is saying what, and which freedoms are they limiting on people who happen to be homosexual? And are they any different from President Obama's views?

 

Read it for yourself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/rick-santorum-would-invalidate-gay-marriages_n_1178450.html

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/02/BA3Q1N9EV9.DTL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And "He isn't the only one, just listen to the presidential candidates wanting to limit freedoms for homosexuals." - who is saying what, and which freedoms are they limiting on people who happen to be homosexual? And are they any different from President Obama's views?

 

Read it for yourself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/rick-santorum-would-invalidate-gay-marriages_n_1178450.html

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/02/BA3Q1N9EV9.DTL

 

In my state it's legal to take a child bride if the parents approve.  Should it also be legal to consumate a homosexual marriage to a child if the parents approve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And "He isn't the only one, just listen to the presidential candidates wanting to limit freedoms for homosexuals." - who is saying what, and which freedoms are they limiting on people who happen to be homosexual? And are they any different from President Obama's views?

 

Read it for yourself:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/rick-santorum-would-invalidate-gay-marriages_n_1178450.html

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/02/BA3Q1N9EV9.DTL

 

In my state it's legal to take a child bride if the parents approve.  Should it also be legal to consumate a homosexual marriage to a child if the parents approve?

 

Personally, I think what this all boils down to is companies don't want to have to pay spousal benefits.  So they back candidates that will keep their costs down.  Just like "banning the EPA" and other tricks to lower the cost of doing business.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my state it's legal to take a child bride if the parents approve.  Should it also be legal to consumate a homosexual marriage to a child if the parents approve?

 

Holy F@$#... What state do you live in? Actually let me Google that...

 

And what do they consider to be "a child" exactly? And my answer would be if they're going to allow a child to be given away for marriage, why do they draw the line at the gender of two adults wanting to get married... Crazy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my state it's legal to take a child bride if the parents approve.  Should it also be legal to consumate a homosexual marriage to a child if the parents approve?

 

Holy F@$#... What state do you live in? Actually let me Google that...

 

And what do they consider to be "a child" exactly? And my answer would be if they're going to allow a child to be given away for marriage, why do they draw the line at the gender of two adults wanting to get married... Crazy

 

It's a generally good law intended to cover the situation when a pubescent girl gets pregnant by an older teenager or even by an adult.  Willing or not, this is statutory rape with possibly years of jail time.  However, if the parents approve, and the usually young lovers (remember Romeo and Juliette?) are allowed to marry, there is no crime.

 

There are abuses of the intent of the law, even without throwing homosexuality into the pot.  In one of these cases, a thirty something year old female teacher took a 13 year old boy student in her 7th grade class as her lover.  She was kept in jail because she wouldn't stop seeing the boy, but she got out before the trial.  Then, she married the boy with his parents permission the day he turned 14, immediately before the trial was scheduled to begin.

 

Case dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ericopoly,

 

The articles you put up just show that Santorum believes MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. A person who is heterosexual CANNOT marry another person of the same sex, under that definition. So the law is applied the same whether you are hetero- or homosexual. Please do not confuse religious beliefs and/or historical definitions with HATE. It is a conversation worth having. If you immediately call one side "hate-mongers" because you disagree with them, the conversation will not be very fruitful. Also, when the law is simply disregarded, as it was in California, the divisions will probably only harden, instead of soften.

 

Interesting about the state with the parental consent law, never heard that before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a generally good law intended to cover the situation when a pubescent girl gets pregnant by an older teenager or even by an adult.  Willing or not, this is statutory rape with possibly years of jail time.  However, if the parents approve, and the usually young lovers are allowed to marry, there is no crime.

 

Even without throwing homosexuality into the pot, there are abuses.  In one of these, a thirty something year old female teacher took a 13 year old boy student in her class as her lover.  She was kept in jail because she wouldn't stop seeing the boy, but she got out before the trial.  Then, she married the boy with his parents premission the day he turned 14, immediately before the trial was scheduled to begin.

 

Case dismissed.

 

That's just crazy.  Why not just not charge the woman?  I'm 39 now and my wife is 36, but when we started seeing each other I was 18 and she had just turned 15.  I could have been charged with a crime.  Luckily I wasn't, but if I had been, a good solution wouldn't have been forcing us to get married before we were ready. We did get married 6 years later when we were ready.  Why not just admit that it's "statutory rape" laws that are the problem in the first place.  The government passes one law that causes a problem then workarounds need to be found.

 

Just like with gay marriage.  Why is marriage a government thing to begin with?  Why are people treated differently depending on who they have sex with?  The world marriage shouldn't be in law anywhere.  If you want person X to inherit your belongings that is what a will is for.  If you want to get "married" that is a contract or a religious commitment between you and (one or more) other people, it should have nothing to do with the government or with law.  Other than maybe contract law.

 

--Eric

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ericopoly,

 

The articles you put up just show that Santorum believes MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. A person who is heterosexual CANNOT marry another person of the same sex, under that definition. So the law is applied the same whether you are hetero- or homosexual. Please do not confuse religious beliefs and/or historical definitions with HATE. It is a conversation worth having. If you immediately call one side "hate-mongers" because you disagree with them, the conversation will not be very fruitful.

 

It is hate though.  It's bigotry, it's intolerance.  Perhaps it is codified in his religion, wouldn't surprise me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The articles you put up just show that Santorum believes MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman.

 

That is an opinion.  Which he is completely entitled to. His opinions are entirely his business right up until the point where he wants to use the violence of the state to enforce them on others.  No one is trying to force homosexual marriage on him. If Sanatorium wants to not marry another man everyone is fine with that.  When he wants to tell other people who they are "allowed" to marry themselves (i.e. use government force to enforce his personal preferences on others) that's were the problem is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The articles you put up just show that Santorum believes MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman.

 

That is an opinion.  Which he is completely entitled to. His opinions are entirely his business right up until the point where he wants to use the violence of the state to enforce them on others.  No one is trying to force homosexual marriage on him. If Sanatorium wants to not marry another man everyone is fine with that.  When he wants to tell other people who they are "allowed" to marry themselves (i.e. use government force to enforce his personal preferences on others) that's were the problem is.

 

I joke that divorce is more of a threat to marriage, but he isn't against that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hester

Rick Santorum ends almost every speech stating he is standing up for freedom. Meanwhile he opposes contraception, and has signed a pledge to deny gay marriage rights and to ban all forms of pornography. Yay freedom.

Link to comment
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
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...