Err America files Chapter 11

[Chef Jim]

Absolutely. Air America's regular line-up was predicated on the fact that they figured there would be enough rockin' lefties out there who actually cared what Al Franken or Randi Rhodes had to say. Unlike say right wing radio listeners, who pretty much have to have things dictated to them by somebody who appears to be a folksy populist, most libs are too intelligent and diverse to fall for that.

Or maybe we just have lives?

803824[/snapback]

 

Come on Joe, it's real tacky to create a new ID so you can respond positively to your own posts. The least you could have done is not kept joe in the name.

[Alaska Darin]

most libs are too intelligent and diverse to fall for that.

803824[/snapback]

[GG]

Plus many conservative listeners are older retired folks and stay-at-home people who have more time to listen to talk radio.

803707[/snapback]

 

Or they can pay the electric bill or buy batteries to power the transistor radio?

[Orton's Arm]

It's tough for a liberal station to make a go of it, because by definition liberals are more open to different ideas . . .

Liberals are what?! Your post represents the biggest single departure from reality I've remembered seeing on these boards, and that's saying a lot.

 

Liberals are very open to liberal ideas. But most liberals I've known become emotional or angry when presented with any other type of ideas. Or they'll act disappointed--"I thought you were a good enough person to accept liberal view X. The fact you believe in conservative view Y lowers you in my eyes."

[KD in CA]

Liberals are very open to liberal ideas.  But most liberals I've known become emotional or angry when presented with any other type of ideas.  Or they'll act disappointed--"I thought you were a good enough person to accept liberal view X.  The fact you believe in conservative view Y lowers you in my eyes."

803919[/snapback]

 

Bingo.

 

Modern liberals think being soft on terrorists and illegal immigration makes them 'open minded'.

[Chilly]

Bingo.

 

Modern liberals think being soft on terrorists and illegal immigration makes them 'open minded'. 

803958[/snapback]

 

lol "soft"

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm a liberal and I listened to Air America about 3-4 times in the car and it was virtually unlistenable. Pathetic. Glad it's gone. You can't complain about something like conservative talk radio, try the same thing, and then do MORE of what you're complaining about than they do (not seeing the other side and just blathering). It was really embarrassing. Sure, 3-4 times for 10 minutes at a clip is not a good sampling, but I very much doubt it was any different any other time.

[Orton's Arm]

Bingo.

 

Modern liberals think being soft on terrorists and illegal immigration makes them 'open minded'. 

803958[/snapback]

It's worse than that, KD. Modern liberals have pushed for, and often achieved, the following:

- Women to spend as much time in educational institutions and the workplace as possible, even if this means they're too busy to have kids. Part of the reason these women have to work so hard is to pay for:

- Social programs which encourage welfare recipients to have as many children as possible.

 

Together, these two liberal goals work to ensure that reproductive potential is taken from the brightest and hardest working women, and transferred to women who, on average, tend to be significantly less intelligent than are working women.

 

Then you have the open door immigration policy you mentioned. The underlying problem is that Third World women are having too many children; leading to poverty. Liberals welcome the idea of flooding this country with Third World immigrants. An open door immigration policy does nothing to solve the Third World overpopulation problem; it simply transfers this problem here. Once the United States has been engulfed by the Third World, this solution will no longer be available.

 

There are three ways for the problem of Third World over-reproduction to be solved:

- Maybe Third World women, acting on their own, will happen to decide to have fewer kids.

- A human agency could help solve the problem through distribution of birth control, education, etc.

- Nature can solve the problem through disease and famine

 

In time, the problem of Third World overpopulation will be solved through one of these three methods. By crippling the long-term strength of the U.S., liberal efforts make it far less possible for this problem to be humanely solved via a human agency. The unimaginable cruelty of a nature-based solution becomes far more likely.

[Kelly the Dog]

It's worse than that, KD.  Modern liberals have pushed for, and often achieved, the following:

- Women to spend as much time in educational institutions and the workplace as possible, even if this means they're too busy to have kids.  Part of the reason these women have to work so hard is to pay for:

- Social programs which encourage welfare recipients to have as many children as possible.

 

 

804013[/snapback]

I wondered where you've been, Kurt.

[Orton's Arm]

I wondered where you've been, Kurt.

804017[/snapback]

See? This response is what I'm talking about. Zero discussion about the underlying issue of whether liberal programs are contributing to the long-term weakening of the U.S., or whether we might need to start acting differently if we want to avoid the prospect of future famines. In place of the intelligent, open-minded discussion Pasta Joe led us to expect from liberals, I'm being called Kurt. I've been called worse, so the name doesn't really bother me. But I do wish there was at least a fleeting interest in seeing problems from a non-liberal perspective.

[Kelly the Dog]

See?  This response is what I'm talking about.  Zero discussion about the underlying issue of whether liberal programs are contributing to the long-term weakening of the U.S., or whether we might need to start acting differently if we want to avoid the prospect of future famines.  In place of the intelligent, open-minded discussion Pasta Joe led us to expect from liberals, I'm being called Kurt.  I've been called worse, so the name doesn't really bother me.  But I do wish there was at least a fleeting interest in seeing problems from a non-liberal perspective.

804019[/snapback]

You cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone that wants to produce a master race, sorry.

[/dev/null]

Bingo.

 

Modern liberals think being soft on terrorists and illegal immigration makes them 'open minded'. 

803958[/snapback]

But...but.but...but

North Korea didn't explode any nuclear devices when Clinton was president

 

Maybe we should give Osama a basketball!

 

[Chilly]

It's worse than that, KD.  Modern liberals have pushed for, and often achieved, the following:

- Women to spend as much time in educational institutions and the workplace as possible, even if this means they're too busy to have kids.  Part of the reason these women have to work so hard is to pay for:

- Social programs which encourage welfare recipients to have as many children as possible.

 

Together, these two liberal goals work to ensure that reproductive potential is taken from the brightest and hardest working women, and transferred to women who, on average, tend to be significantly less intelligent than are working women.

 

Then you have the open door immigration policy you mentioned.  The underlying problem is that Third World women are having too many children; leading to poverty.  Liberals welcome the idea of flooding this country with Third World immigrants.  An open door immigration policy does nothing to solve the Third World overpopulation problem; it simply transfers this problem here.  Once the United States has been engulfed by the Third World, this solution will no longer be available. 

 

There are three ways for the problem of Third World over-reproduction to be solved:

- Maybe Third World women, acting on their own, will happen to decide to have fewer kids.

- A human agency could help solve the problem through distribution of birth control, education, etc.

- Nature can solve the problem through disease and famine

 

In time, the problem of Third World overpopulation will be solved through one of these three methods.  By crippling the long-term strength of the U.S., liberal efforts make it far less possible for this problem to be humanely solved via a human agency.    The unimaginable cruelty of a nature-based solution becomes far more likely.

804013[/snapback]

 

 

Wow.

[Orton's Arm]

You cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone that wants to produce a master race, sorry.

804023[/snapback]

I didn't use the words "master race," nor did I advocate the underlying concept. I'm not accusing you of deliberately using a straw man argument, because that may not have been your intention. But you are inadvertently helping me disprove Pasta Joe's portrayal of liberals, for which I thank you.

 

If you've followed what I've written elsewhere, you know I'm concerned that, in the U.S., intelligent women tend to have fewer children than less intelligent women do. This is true for people of all races; so a black woman with an I.Q. of 160 will, on average, bear fewer children than a black woman with an I.Q. of 80. Liberal social policies and attitudes are largely responsible for this. The black community would benefit if these things were reversed, and if intelligent black women began bearing more children than their less intelligent counterparts. Black leaders might arise to take the place of Malcom X and Dr. Martin Luther King.

 

The weakening of America's gene pool is one of the two main sins of liberalism. The other is liberal inaction in the face of the Third World overpopulation crisis. Liberal compassion means nothing, because it's not coupled with the discipline to see things as they are.

 

Studies have shown intelligence is determined far more strongly by genetics than it is by environment. Liberals claim to be very interested in education, and often think of themselves as intellectually superior to their Republican counterparts. But if I point out that improving America's gene pool would improve the nation's collective intelligence far more than dumping yet more money into a failed public school system, liberals don't want to listen.

[Chilly]

I didn't use the words "master race," nor did I advocate the underlying concept.  I'm not accusing you of deliberately using a straw man argument, because that may not have been your intention.  But you are inadvertently helping me disprove Pasta Joe's portrayal of liberals, for which I thank you. 

 

If you've followed what I've written elsewhere, you know I'm concerned that, in the U.S., intelligent women tend to have fewer children than less intelligent women do.  This is true for people of all races; so a black woman with an I.Q. of 160 will, on average, bear fewer children than a black woman with an I.Q. of 80.  Liberal social policies and attitudes are largely responsible for this.  The black community would benefit if these things were reversed, and if intelligent black women began bearing more children than their less intelligent counterparts.  Black leaders might arise to take the place of Malcom X and Dr. Martin Luther King.

 

The weakening of America's gene pool is one of the two main sins of liberalism.  The other is liberal inaction in the face of the Third World overpopulation crisis.  Liberal compassion means nothing, because it's not coupled with the discipline to see things as they are. 

 

Studies have shown intelligence is determined far more strongly by genetics than it is by environment.  Liberals claim to be very interested in education, and often think of themselves as intellectually superior to their Republican counterparts.  But if I point out that improving America's gene pool would improve the nation's collective intelligence far more than dumping yet more money into a failed public school system, liberals don't want to listen.

804098[/snapback]

 

Lets force women to not have the choice to work, and to have children, because it'll make everyone smarter overall!

 

Lets put the dumb ones to work, so that they are forced to not have children.

 

!@#$ equality, !@#$ freedom, go go total government control over sex!

[Bungee Jumper]

!@#$ equality, !@#$ freedom, go go total government control over sex!

804261[/snapback]

 

Actually, he's advocating total government control over deciding who works and who doesn't, on the principle that work and children are mutually exclusive to some degree.

 

Yeah, whatever...

[Chilly]

Actually, he's advocating total government control over deciding who works and who doesn't, on the principle that work and children are mutually exclusive to some degree.

 

  Yeah, whatever...

804271[/snapback]

 

Yeah, you're right, I only scanned his post.

 

Its still completely stupid though.

[Orton's Arm]

Lets force women to not have the choice to work, and to have children, because it'll make everyone smarter overall!

 

Lets put the dumb ones to work, so that they are forced to not have children.

 

!@#$ equality, !@#$ freedom, go go total government control over sex!

804261[/snapback]

"Total governmental control over sex?" Where did I advocate that?

 

I merely pointed out that thanks to liberal action, the government has influenced less intelligent people to have more children than people who are smarter.

 

If the government is going to influence the number of children people have, it should do so in the direction of helping smarter people have more children than those who are less intelligent. Having children is expensive, which is why many people decide to limit their family sizes. The government could provide financial help with having children, but the help should be in proportion to the intelligence of the people having them. So people of average intelligence might get help with their first two kids, while a woman with an I.Q. of 160 would get help for each and every kid she chose to have. Someone with an I.Q. of 70 would get a check to have his or her tubes tied.

 

A woman with an I.Q. of 70 could still have as many children as she chose. Nobody is forcing her to collect that check for having her tubes tied; any more than the woman with an I.Q. of 160 is forced to receive government help for having a large family. Government-based financial incentives are part of our present system, so I'm not advocating a new tool. I'm advocating a new use for an exisiting tool--a constructive use, for a change.

[blzrul]

It's worse than that, KD.  Modern liberals have pushed for, and often achieved, the following:

- Women to spend as much time in educational institutions and the workplace as possible, even if this means they're too busy to have kids.  Part of the reason these women have to work so hard is to pay for:

- Social programs which encourage welfare recipients to have as many children as possible.

 

Together, these two liberal goals work to ensure that reproductive potential is taken from the brightest and hardest working women, and transferred to women who, on average, tend to be significantly less intelligent than are working women.

 

Then you have the open door immigration policy you mentioned.  The underlying problem is that Third World women are having too many children; leading to poverty.  Liberals welcome the idea of flooding this country with Third World immigrants.  An open door immigration policy does nothing to solve the Third World overpopulation problem; it simply transfers this problem here.  Once the United States has been engulfed by the Third World, this solution will no longer be available. 

 

There are three ways for the problem of Third World over-reproduction to be solved:

- Maybe Third World women, acting on their own, will happen to decide to have fewer kids.

- A human agency could help solve the problem through distribution of birth control, education, etc.

- Nature can solve the problem through disease and famine

 

In time, the problem of Third World overpopulation will be solved through one of these three methods.  By crippling the long-term strength of the U.S., liberal efforts make it far less possible for this problem to be humanely solved via a human agency.    The unimaginable cruelty of a nature-based solution becomes far more likely.

804013[/snapback]

I'd love to know where you got all THAT from. Sounds like you're pretty hung up on reproduction. Funny about conservatives, they really have issues with that. I wonder why?

 

Not being a liberal, how would you know what we want? How about

 

-Schools where our children can learn and not have to worry about getting shot up

-Equal access to doctors and medical treatment for the middle class and poor as well as the rich

-Good roads and decent public transportation to use as an alternative, to keep money in our pockets and reduce pollutants and dependence on oil

-Peace

-Fair and equitable taxation so that the middle class isn't groaning under the burden of taxation whilst the rich take advantage of loopholes and the corporations pillage.

-Improvements in third-world countries so that others, like most of us, can go to bed at night not having to worry about whether they will eat tomorrow

-More cordial relations with the parts of the world that want the same things we do, so that the renegades are truly isolated and thus can be destroyed.

 

If those things frighten conservatives, their world must be a very scary and barren place. How very unfortunate for them.

[Bungee Jumper]

"Total governmental control over sex?"  Where did I advocate that? 

 

I merely pointed out that thanks to liberal action, the government has influenced less intelligent people to have more children than people who are smarter. 

 

If the government is going to influence the number of children people have, it should do so in the direction of helping smarter people have more children than those who are less intelligent.  Having children is expensive, which is why many people decide to limit their family sizes.  The government could provide financial help with having children, but the help should be in proportion to the intelligence of the people having them.  So people of average intelligence might get help with their first two kids, while a woman with an I.Q. of 160 would get help for each and every kid she chose to have.  Someone with an I.Q. of 70 would get a check to have his or her tubes tied. 

 

A woman with an I.Q. of 70 could still have as many children as she chose.  Nobody is forcing her to collect that check for having her tubes tied; any more than the woman with an I.Q. of 160 is forced to receive government help for having a large family.  Government-based financial incentives are part of our present system, so I'm not advocating a new tool.  I'm advocating a new use for an exisiting tool--a constructive use, for a change.

804384[/snapback]

 

Oh, you just want your government check...