Which sentiments, precisely? Pull up some quotes, kiddo. Because mischaracterizing what others have said is generally considered to be “intellectually dishonest” (your own explicable standards of “honesty” notwithstanding.)
By examining things like “market forces”. By using reasoning beyond the slippery slope and the hypothetical. In short, by examining reality rather than fantasy.
Well, that is what the thread is about. Or did you miss the OP?
Nope. I don’t buy the ridiculous notion that not restricting one word will magically lead to all standards disappearing.
IOW, you’re too chickenshit, but let me ask you something (not that you’ll have the balls to answer, but what the hell, it’s kind of fun [not to mention easy] to make you look like an ass) considering the fact that we’ve got a government that:
[ul]
[li]Can’t find Osama (and doesn’t really seem to be interested in finding him).[/li][li]Can’t get Iraq stable[/li][li]Couldn’t stop 9/11, even though they had ample warning that something was up[/li][li]Can’t fix New Orleans (and the rest of the Gulf Coast that got wiped out)[/li][li]Can’t live within it’s means[/li][li]Can’t stop the spread of nuclear weapons[/li][li]Can’t eliminate poverty, despite a 40 year “war” against it[/li][li]Can’t manage the space program properly[/li][li]Can’t abide by international law and treaties[/li][li]Can’t find the WMDs that they knew were in Iraq[/li](to name but a few things)
[/ul]And you honestly think that this government can figure out what is and is not appropriate for broadcast? Where the fuck do you get such faith in this, or any other fucking Administration? Seems to me, the term “clusterfuck” applies more to our government than just about any other term I can think of.
I’m afraid, dear Tuckerfan, that you are just a wackjob. You make leaps of logic that make no sense; you contrast things that in reality have nothing to do with one another; and you make silly declarative statements that have nothing to do with the subject the statements purport to address; you have shown an eager willingness to make declarations regarding things you know nothing about; and you’ve called me liar based upon no factual evidence whatsoever.
Actually, I’m a self absorbed little prick, but that’s beside the point.
IOW, you can’t think of a response, so rather than concede you don’t know what the flying fuck you’re talking about, you’d rather runaway and hide.
Cite?
Again, cite?
And again, cite?
Actually, I didn’t say you were a liar, I said I didn’t believe you, which is splitting hairs, I’ll admit, but let’s face it, you’re a thin skinned little bitch who can’t stand the heat, so you’d rather stick your fingers in your ears running away screaming, “LALALALALALALA! I can’t hear you!” than put up a decent fight.
Translation: Starving Artist is a craven little coward.
I notice that there’s a number of dopers who’ve asked you serious questions that you’ve been too chickenshit to respond to. I demand cites for your assertations and suddenly I’m “not worth the trouble”? Ha! I can’t think of any idiots so dumb that they couldn’t see through that little dodge of yours. You got nothing and you know it, but you can’t admit that you just might be wrong about all of this, because that thin veneer you call a psyche would implode if you were to do that. God forbid you actually put reasoned thought behind your beliefs and subjected them to scientific rigor!
You mean such reasoned discourse as asking for cites as to my hypothetical ‘Big Sister’ warping her sister’s mind, or such seasoned recourse as his saying that people were polite and mannerly in the fifties because they’d exploited blacks? That seasoned recourse?:rolleyes:
No, you weren’t worth the trouble before that and I said so before that.
Yes, but where are these folks who you talk so freely about? Who are they? Where is the this huge moral outrage at Janet’s nipple?
In my own slice of RL, that matter was handled by a couple of head shakes and shoulder shrugs–what caused conversation was the FCC ruling.
Your slippery slope does not apply to everyone and frankly, is pretty much all in your own head. Again, I ask you to do what the conservative side of the aisle states is the Truth and the Way: get up off your ass, talk to your kids, turn off your TV.
Why is Nannystate only good when it’s for a conservative cause? What hypocrisy.
You’re not afraid of slinging insults, but this sure ain’t the first time you’ve come up with some excuse for refusing to engage in meaningful argument.
Again, you actually think it’s unreasonable to ask you to discuss the matter in terms of actual evidence rather than made up stories? Simply unreal.
Reasoned discourse. “Seasoned discourse” would be discourse with eleven secret herbs and spices.
And, since my point seems to have totally eluded you, I was challenging your suggestion that there was anything particularly mannerly about the fantasy version of the “old days” you were describing.
I don’t like talking with you. Having to dumb down my arguments to your level is irritating.
No, because as anyone who’s read this thread can tell, you just made that shit up out of whole cloth.
Scroll back up, asshole, because you’ve got things out of sequence. You made the claim that Limbaugh had more money than Carlin, I said, “Cite?” and then you suddenly decided that I wasn’t worth the trouble of arguing with. Grow a pair and admit you’re beat.
Oh, I just love that little collective false-memory. I have great aunts in their 80s who have been every bit as liberal as the status quo on this board since they were old enough to form complete sentences.
My wife’s grandparents adopted liberal viewpoints in their 70s after a lifetime of conservatism. Surely it wasn’t nostalgia for that liberal Eden they grew up in that forced them to make that choice. My grandfather (god rest his soul) was going to vote Democrat for the first time in his life in the last election. Surely that’s not the best way for him to get back to the wonder years of his youth, before liberal ideology actually gained a foothold?
Like it or not, not everybody looked and acted like the Cleavers until Jimi Hendrix picked up a guitar.
This country needs another “Silent Majority” speech.
Well, one point in my favor is that people are actively buying/consuming the “objectionable” material in droves. The market says that people are fine with their “vulgar” popular culture. And it’s been amply shown that the most vocal complaints are manufactured by a small political pressure group. I admit, I don’t have slam-dunk, iron-clad proof that I’m right, but I’ve got something. Which, again, is more than you’ve got.
I think those are effectively the same thing, no?
Not nearly a specious as to claim these complaints exist when no one seems to have actually made any. If it’s unfair of me to assume that people who haven’t complained aren’t really bothered, isn’t it even more unfair for you to say that people who haven’t complained really are bothered?
Well, you know us liberals. We’re all about small government and the free market.
Because I’ve actually looked at (or, even more effective, listened to) rap music. Yeah, sure, there’s a lot of crap out there. There’s also a lot of really good, non-obscene stuff being produced. The pornographic stuff has not crowded all the other rap music out of the market by any means. As usual, you are trying to prove your point by reference to a subject about which you know nothing, and which actually undercuts the very point you try to make.
I’m not entirely certain what you’re accusing me of, here. Why don’t you try rephrasing it in English and get back to me?
Oh, really. The levels of public invective (to take one obvious measure of impoliteness and incivility) reached in “the good old days” would make Farenheit 9-11 and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth look like the two sides of a sedate McNeill Lehrer Hour discussion.