Hypathia

FOXNEWS! Butero, you're being "punked" there for sure. If you haven't figured that out by now then it'll do no good for me to waste my breath explaining it to you. If you ever get "suspicious" you could always get your local library to get you a DVD called, "Outfoxed", several reporter and former fox employees spill the beans on how they squash stories, tell outright lies, and use propaganda to empower the republican party. It's not exactly a big secret among those who work there. I don't support complete freedom either. Liberal does not mean chaos. I think fair capitalism with fair ground rules works best on the business and industry side of things. But when it comes to "sexual morality" I think people should have a little more freedom to make those decisions for themselves concerning their personal lives. Other people need to "butt out" there for the most part. Christians have enough on their plate just dealing with their own lusts and teaching their children to control theirs. As for the Fairness Doctrine it worked well from 1949 to 1987 under both Democratic and Republican administrations; it was a good thing in as far as the electorate getting the news. It was also upheld by the Supreme Court as being constitutional in 1969. -- If liberal talk show hosts were the norm on a.m. radio you'd be singing a different tune there. I think both liberal and conservative shows should be available on my local stations and when someone trys to keep me from hearing both sides then I have to ask myself what it is they don't want me to hear.

I agree, that's why I support the Fairness Doctrine. I might also add that I support some regulation in regards to sex and foul language on television. --- When Rush the only show in town there's nothing else to support financially. I don't want all Rush; I made requests for balance and I'm sure others have to. It's easy to win a race when you own all the ponies. We never got Air America radio here and why should there be an Air America anyway? News and views should be on the stations we can get for free imo. If you want Rush for entertainment then that's your choice but I wouldn't rely on him for truthful news that's for sure. BTW - We live in what is suppose to be a republic.....captialism with ground rules so to speak.....not mob rule/democracy.

And where pray tell have I heard all three blanket statements made time and again.....hmmm, let me see...why it was Rush Limbaugh and he was saying all that way back in 92 and 93 and I suspect he's been repeating it in all these years since. Try reading up on the fairness doctrine, try doing a search on who owns what in the media.....you might be surprised. I know I was. I know about the fairness doctrine. I worked in radio when it was still in place. It is pure communism. It is the government telling someone what they must broadcast. If a liberal wants to start a station, their is nothing to stop them. I have been stating for years that liberals have been getting away with a false image that they are supporting freedoms, when nothing could be further from the truth. They don't support free speech. They do if it benefits them, but if they don't like what others are saying, they try to muzzle them. They are the biggest hypocrites going. The only reason why you have more stations carrying Rush than libs is because nobody wants to listen to the liberal talkers. As I stated earlier, they definately wouldn't want to listent to the people I would hire for the liberal perspective. I would either find someone so incoherent people would change the station, or someone so outragious, it would push them to the conservatives. Not now they don't because we've had a whole generation that's been spoon-fed Rush exclusively on the a.m. for 20 yrs; that's plenty of indoctrination time. But, it also proves that entertainment is what people want and not news......thinking they've gotten news from their entertainment is just a byproduct. I'd love to buy a radio station but I don't have the money. Even if I did I would air Rush's show; I'd just balance it out with a liberal show either before or afterward. You've got it bass-ackwards there Butero.....That's the description of ultra conservatives and neo-conservatives.....not liberals. Liberals believe in liberty and while you were quick to throw out the "communism" word let me remind you that you that the Soviet Union had no Fairness Doctrine or 1930s Germany. Also you are a person who tends to support "theocratic" ideas in govt.....which most certainly do not include either freedom or liberty so when I hear you talk about freedom my red flag immediately goes up.

You guys are clueless when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine but when you get your news on it from Rush Limbaugh it's no wonder. The first time I ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine it was from Rush and he was lambasting it. I didn't know any better at the time and I was agreeing with him. As several have already pointed out Rush makes no bones about being biased so you might want to keep that in mind when he verbally trounces the "Fairness Doctrine"; he's giving you his biased view on that as well as all the other topics. I don't want to pay for radio; I've got lots of stations so all I'm asking is that I be presented with more than one view on every station all day long. All I'm asking is that the media be independent and not owned by a handful of people who will look out for their own economic interests by convincing their listeners not to look out for theirs. What's unfair about that? The Fairness Doctrine does what it says, it promotes fairness in the marketplace of ideas and promotes freedom of speech, it protects the public from propaganda to put it bluntly. Yod, who keeps talking about the "hate America crowd"....why Rush of course! I'm an ex conservative turned liberal, I'm American, and I'm a veteran and I can asure you that I do not hate America. One of my neighborhood acquaintences is 87 years old, fought in WWII and loves America.... and he's always been a liberal. My late father-in-law was like this neighbor. Both these guys have always been liberal and love America. As a self-admitted biased radio talk show host you need to start questioning what Rush and others like him say and not take it on faith. We don't live in a perfect world; it's not gonna be that way until Jesus comes back so we need to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing....and wolves wrapped in American flags too.

I don't think practicing homosexuals should be labeled chrisitans that why I specifically said homosexuals who abstain from sex and practice celibacy. Jesus was very specific in regards to divorce that's why I said "unbiblical" divorce and remarriage so yes those who are unbiblically divorced and remarried are indeed in the same category despite all your but, but, but, but, buts to the contrary. Isn't that exactly what you are doing with the divorce verses? Aren't you making excuses the same way those who say a homosexual can be sexually active and still be a Christian?

I'd like to comment even though you directed it at forrest. Jesus tells us time and again that divorce and remarriage is adultery but I don't see anyone saying Christians that have done this are non-christian. I'd say a homosexual that abstains from sex and practices celibacy could be a Christian just as easily as all those non-biblically divorced and remarried folks who fill the church pews and the collection plates every Sunday. Don't forget to ask the candidates where they stand on the issues of poverty, fair wages, humility, charity, and the environment too. Sexual morality isn't the only topic covered in the Bible.

And where pray tell have I heard all three blanket statements made time and again.....hmmm, let me see...why it was Rush Limbaugh and he was saying all that way back in 92 and 93 and I suspect he's been repeating it in all these years since. Try reading up on the fairness doctrine, try doing a search on who owns what in the media.....you might be surprised. I know I was.

Total rubbish. Before Rush became so popular there was the "Fairness Doctrine". The problem is that to conservatives these days anything they hear that they don't want to hear.....even if it's true, is labeled "liberal". Part of Rush's success is that the Fairness Doctrine was abolished under Reagan. If say...3 hours of Rush had been followed up with 3 hours of Al Franken (are there any other liberal talk show hosts out there?) Rush would be nowhere near as popular and he certainly wouldn't have the same fan base that he has today. He'd still have fans but not nearly as many. Liberals don't own the media Yod; it's controlled by conservative corporations and it is the board of directors who decides what gets on the air. If the media were really liberal they wouldn't keep telling you the media is liberal but even with a conservatively owned media they can't squash every story that is negative toward republicans. Rush doesn't say what you know to be true; Rush just makes you feel good because he tells you what you want to hear. BTW - You just confirmed with your post what the other poster was saying....you think what comes out of Rush's mouth....is news....not just entertainment. ---- And, I for one didn't think the watergate coverage was socialist propaganda.

I'm sorry, I don't find "hate" to be entertaining at all....but that's just me. I'd like to get some news on the radio when I'm in my car; if I want to be entertained I'll watch a movie or read a book. btw - I can't get Air America in my car and I can't carry my computer speakers everywhere with me. I've only listened to it a couple of times at home because it's a hassle to try and listen to the internet; I have other things to do when I'm in my home. In my area Rush is on every station except NPR and they're usually playing classical music. I did contact a few stations and asked them to air some liberal programs either before or after Rush and one replied that they were a family oriented radio station (Rush Limbaugh is family oriented?) I investigated a little further and discovered that one family owns three of the stations but they don't advertise that fact either. You might think you're getting three separate independent stations and a choice of what to listen to but you're not. You're getting one families political views exclusively.

Rush Limbaugh is dead serious imo. I used to listen to him, listened to him for several years and I quit but last week I did listen to him for about an hour and a half. He's gotten worse with age, his tone is mean, not funny at all anymore. He may try to "veil" some of his comments as "humour" but they're not. It's scary to me to see so many Christians hold this man in such high regard. That's true; I've noticed it and for a while there I used to do the same thing. Now-a-days when I hear someone talking like Rush and others I'll say in a friendly tone, "Do you listen to Rush?" The answer is always an enthuastiac "YES!" It's no wonder these guys are against the "Fairness Doctrine"; they're scared to death of losing their monopoly of the a.m. (what people listen to all day at work and in the car). Those liberal views and talking points getting equal time on the a.m. is very threatening to them. They want to keep it like it is (a handful of corporations owning most of the radio stations) and airing their views ONLY. This isn't free speech; it's crossed the line into pure propaganda now.

Nothing. Around 1900 1/8th of the population owned 7/8ths of the wealth.....and the working people recognized that (so did Teddy Roosevelt)...the same type of thing has been happening again in recent years. The difference this time around is that the working people have been convinced that this is the way "things ought to be". It's very alarming when the common man truly believes that he/she should support the economic propertity of the haves (wealth and power) over their own economic needs (no wealth, no power). That imo requires a certain amount of brainwashing....because it's just not normal. I'd say the elite in our society has learned from the past and used mental and emotional manipulation thru mass media to achieve this frame of mind. The day will come when the haves nots... have nothing at all, no money, no homes, a pile of debt and they'll no longer have a political voice either because they'll have given that up too by endorsing bills and laws that undermine what little political/economic power they once had.

Ditto!

I have to admit when that story first came out I was really alarmed. Now that some of the dust has cleared it does appear to be another attempt at "smearing". The question now is, "is anyone going to be fired over it?" Dan Rather got fired over a phoney document even though the story itself was true. I somehow don't think that's going to happen here.

whoah, I missed something.. Planned Parenthood is even against this???? Yep, when was the last time you saw James Dobson agree with them on anything? The only time you'll see that is when both their pocket-books are affected. Money, money, money, it's all about money.

Most of this lobbying reform bill passed. It was mislabeled by all opposed it as a free-speech bill obviously to get their followers upset and ready to act. The one section, which we're discussing here, didn't pass. All the grassroots organizations (both liberal and conservative) got all "up in arms about it" and put the pressure on the Senators to take it out. They did. The lesson here, once again, is that money talks.

I found it ironic that James Dobson vowed to fight it tooth and nail.....along with Planned Parenthood. I think if they're collecting millions of dollars from the "flock" to use for lobbying then they should let those who've donated see exactly where the money is going. Besides I thought our representatives were suppose to represent us; not cater to high-paying lobbyists of ANY persuasion. As far as I know I can still call my representatives and tell them what I think on any given issue. I don't need James Dobson or Planned Parenthood to do it for me. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give to God what is God's. Pastors SHOULD stick to preaching the gospel imo and pay taxes if they want to preach politics from the pulpit.....that goes for liberal churches AND evangelical churches. And ALL grassroots organizations, both liberal and conservative, should be open to scrutiny by the people.

I sure don't want them teaching kids in Sunday School or in our pulputs and I know God doesn't either. ME NEITHER! Arthur - I don't think it's bad to question Barak Obama'a Muslim schooling at all. By what I've read, it was from a group that is very extreme although I think he's Christian now...but I'm not sure. (From wikipedia I believe) so yeah, I want to know his religious views. I feel the same way about a Jewish person and a Christian. I'd want to know that a Jewish person is going to put American interests ahead of Israel and I'd want to know if a Christian person is using Revelation and Daniel as a basis for his foreign policy. Yes we have freedom of religion but these questions matter and they have a bearing on all our lives. I'd rather have an atheist as President than a religious fanatic whose religious views could lead to our countries destruction. That's not good for anybody of any religious persuasion or no religious persuasion. I'll tell you one thing, you couldn't have paid me to step foot on that airplane a few months ago if I'd see those Muslims praying in the boarding area. And I'd be a little hesitant if I saw a bunch of Baptist Preachers doing the same......but for different reasons of course. I'd be afraid the Muslims were gonna blow it up and I'd be afraid the Baptists had got a "word of knowledge or somthing" that it was gonna crash. Either way I'd of had to cash in my ticket and take a car instead.

see what I mean..... I just got sick of it especially when I started noticing it. And the abortion issue is also getting old; that one has been "used" for the past 26 yrs with no major changes so that tells me the right doesn't want it to go away anymore than the left does. It just comes in too handy every election cycle. If the 5 of us have changed our minds about Hillary then I have to think that a lot of other Christians have too even if they're not vocal about it. I think Hillary Clinton's dirty laundry has been hanging out for the world to see for the past 12 years; nothing new to dig up....from here on out anything new will most likely be "made up". I won't. This is what I have been saying. This woman is dangerous. She is far left and will go even further left when she get's into the White House. Like all liberals she will, while she seeks the White House act and speak as if she is in the middle of the road. That is my mind is even more dangerous. I as a Christian I will not one day stand in front of my God and try and explain why I voted for someone who, want's to teach gay lifestyle to first graders, who, believes that a 13 year old can have an abortion without parental permission, who believes in partial birth abortion. (Abortion is a big deal with me and it always will be) who, is known to have made hateful comments about the right, Christians. This is a woman loves power, and Billy Boy want's money. I cannot believe that Christians who are supposed to stand against evil such as abortion, and gay lifestyles will go to the polls and vote for this woman and her left winged agenda. I pray for her soul. Oh the dirty "L" word. Lather, rinse, repeat, lather, rinse, repeat. I've got news for you Rusty, many of "God's people" are liberal and always have been. Many of our founding fathers were most definitely liberal; if they hadn't been we'd still be part of the British Empire. Abortion may be a big deal to you but evidently, as time has shown, it is only a big deal to the republicans when they're running for office and need your vote. And the republican party has more than it's share of closet homosexuals. As for abortion and the Bible, there is a related topic about that on this forum. Check it out this post The Bible and the Unborn Question is: What are YOU going to say to God if he asks you why you continued to support "neo- conservatives" like George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of that crowd? I'm a conservative, I don't apoplgize for that. I don't believe in abortion or the gay lifestyle, I'm not sorry for that. Never will be. In my mind abortion is murder. I will never stand behind that. Doesn't sound like either one of us is going to change our views so, there you have it. I've changed my mind in the past 10 years. I'm now more liberal than conservative and I'm glad I've made the change. I believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester (I used to not believe that) but after that only in the case of a medical emergency. I'm against the gay lifestyle but realize that each person, in a democracy, has the freedom to make their own choices and hold their own beliefs as long as it's with consenting adults. I'm sick of hearing about gay this or gay that; but, as a straight person I don't feel "threatened" by homosexuals. I'd be a lot more concerned if some good-looking fluzy, about 20 yrs younger than me, decided she wanted my man LOL. Even though I've changed my mind gradually over the years I think the country is so divided now that most people don't do that.

see what I mean..... I just got sick of it especially when I started noticing it. And the abortion issue is also getting old; that one has been "used" for the past 26 yrs with no major changes so that tells me the right doesn't want it to go away anymore than the left does. It just comes in too handy every election cycle. If the 5 of us have changed our minds about Hillary then I have to think that a lot of other Christians have too even if they're not vocal about it. I think Hillary Clinton's dirty laundry has been hanging out for the world to see for the past 12 years; nothing new to dig up....from here on out anything new will most likely be "made up". I won't. This is what I have been saying. This woman is dangerous. She is far left and will go even further left when she get's into the White House. Like all liberals she will, while she seeks the White House act and speak as if she is in the middle of the road. That is my mind is even more dangerous. I as a Christian I will not one day stand in front of my God and try and explain why I voted for someone who, want's to teach gay lifestyle to first graders, who, believes that a 13 year old can have an abortion without parental permission, who believes in partial birth abortion. (Abortion is a big deal with me and it always will be) who, is known to have made hateful comments about the right, Christians. This is a woman loves power, and Billy Boy want's money. I cannot believe that Christians who are supposed to stand against evil such as abortion, and gay lifestyles will go to the polls and vote for this woman and her left winged agenda. I pray for her soul. Oh the dirty "L" word. Lather, rinse, repeat, lather, rinse, repeat. I've got news for you Rusty, many of "God's people" are liberal and always have been. Many of our founding fathers were most definitely liberal; if they hadn't been we'd still be part of the British Empire. Abortion may be a big deal to you but evidently, as time has shown, it is only a big deal to the republicans when they're running for office and need your vote. And the republican party has more than it's share of closet homosexuals. As for abortion and the Bible, there is a related topic about that on this forum. Check it out this post The Bible and the Unborn Question is: What are YOU going to say to God if he asks you why you continued to support "neo- conservatives" like George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of that crowd?

I do believe in Stockholm syndrome. This kid may have been able to escape later on and didn't but we don't know what that pedophile did to him the first year of his captivity. Patty Hearst was kept in a closet and not let out for the first two whole months after she was kidnapped and was repeatedly raped by several men. She even had to "use the bathroom" in that filthy dark closet and we see how she went "nuts" for a while. Women allow men to abuse them mentally and physically and lie to cover up for the guy. We all like to say, "I'd have done this, or I'd have done that" but NONE of us really know what we would do because we've never been in that situation. I do think we should add "what to do if you're kidnapped" to the training we give our children. The concentration so far has been on how not to get kidnapped in the first place; we need to expand that. O'Reilly is an a**h***, pure and simple. I watched the show and I've provided the link (couldn't find a link for it at FOX..imagine that.) all I could find there is the video of his reaction to the fall-out after his comments. Naturally he's saying he didn't really say what he said and didn't mean what he meant. Typical O'Reilly. BTW- I can't stand Rosie O'Donnell either. What is up? Why are all these abrasive loud-mouths getting so many viewers and listeners. I can't stand Rosie, Rush, Bill or Shawn. But to each his own, the far-right likes their big mouths and the far-left likes theirs. Wow, has this country ever been more divided?

Sounds great to me Aurthur!! Except for the Jessee Jackson choice; don't like that guy at all but I do like the rest of those you mention. I think it'd be a great team.

I know 5 people who 10 years ago wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Hillary Clinton; I was one of them. One day I realized that I couldn't think of one good reason not to like her. I realized that the only reason I'd bad-mouthed her was because I'd just bought into the smear campaign that the a.m. radio people heaped on her at every opportunity. With the mess Bush is going to leave behind I think she's the best candidate for the position. She's smart, she's not too stubborn and she's got diplomacy and lots of experience with people.......and she was right about the health care thing. She's also got a smart husband to help her mend fences, where we need to mend fences. I'm sure the far-right will go after her with both barrels blazing; they HATE anyone who doesn't cow-tow to them. But like me, I think a lot of Christians are getting fed up with the right telling us what to think, what to do, and how to vote day in and day out. When they can't argue about issues they engage in character attacks even as they promote themselves as being "morally superior"..... see what I mean..... I just got sick of it especially when I started noticing it. And the abortion issue is also getting old; that one has been "used" for the past 26 yrs with no major changes so that tells me the right doesn't want it to go away anymore than the left does. It just comes in too handy every election cycle. If the 5 of us have changed our minds about Hillary then I have to think that a lot of other Christians have too even if they're not vocal about it. I think Hillary Clinton's dirty laundry has been hanging out for the world to see for the past 12 years; nothing new to dig up....from here on out anything new will most likely be "made up".

No, it would just mean people wrote it. It wouldn't have any bearing on God.

I provided a link on the previous page; everyone can view it for themselves.

I keep hearing this but all they teach at my son's school is the biology aspect of it without approving or disapproving of it one way or the other. They also require that the father attend with the son so the class is full of sons with their dads. I went to school in the 1970s and they taught the biology aspect along with abstinence and birth control. We had to get a permission slip from our parents to get the class and it was all girls; I don't know if the boys got a class on it; ours was in the home economics class. I remember only one girl's parents wouldn't let her take it and the following summer she got pregnant. A lot of girls in my high school got pregnant and it was in the south. Most got married but several girl's parents took them to get an abortion. The parents wanted it to be secret (that was the purpose for the abortion....so people wouldn't know the girl had had sex) but the girls always told so everybody ended up finding out anyway. I'll never forget one girl who got pregnant and her parents made her and the boy get married, two days later she had a miscarriage. The baptist minister's daughter got pregnant and it was so obvious to everyone that she was pregnant, everyone except her parents; talk about denial. She finally told them about a week before she had the baby. I think you're right about the stigma thing. That's really all that's changed imo. I guess it's a good thing because it puts less pressure on a girl...and her parents to get an abortion.