Political Discussion =/= Pornography

[Black Landlord]

swampy wrote:
Wow, a public call to start blocking people?

If you don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, you either turn the radio off of you dial in a new station.

Same here, if you don't want to read Stealth's post, hit the Ignore button or just skip over it. You are not required to read his stuff nor reply to it.

Making a public call for everyone else to follow your lead is quite arrogant. I think individuals can make up their own mind without needing a "leader".

Here you go taking one user's unrepresentative comments and proclaiming "a public call". You really don't understand the dynamics of this board or the people here very well.
Personally I only have one user blocked, and it's someone I agree with about 101% of the time politically-- that user pushes my buttons in other ways (ongoing hostility towards me). I welcome dissenting viewpoints and learn from them.
It's particularly educational when folks like you post false claims-- it's like I'm in school working on an excting project when I get to go hop off and find the resources to prove you wrong, and I make so many other discoveries each time. But then, that's really your goal, isn't it, deep down in that golden heart of yours?

[Ted King]

Greg the dogsitter wrote:
I'm just going to block everyone.

samintx wrote:
I guess if you don't agree 100% with someone here you block them, is that right? As if no person has a point to listen to? Ah, that sounds really rational. Just block messages from everyone you don't agree with...the American way?

You are trying to curtail my freedom to block somebody. All you conservatives jump to conclusions without connecting the dots and you make unsubstantiated generalizations.

[swampy]

BL "it's like I'm in school working on an excting project when I get to go hop off and find the resources to prove you wrong, and I make so many other discoveries each time. But then, that's really your goal, isn't it, deep down in that golden heart of yours?"

Might be, BL.. It could be the subconscious teacher coming out in me.

[Ted King]

Stizzealth wrote:
Ted:

The reason that the Fairness Doctrine targets conservative talk show hosts more than liberal talk show hosts is that nobody listens to liberal talk radio. Radio station operators would have to host the liberal talk show hosts who get fewer listeners, and thus would have to charge less advertising money during those segment. It's much easier (and more profitable) for the station to just dump the conservative talk show host.

I didn't say that a Fairness Doctrine wouldn't disproportionately effect conservative talk shows. I was just deconstructing the argument you did try to make - and what you say in this post was not one of those points.

I actually don't think there should be a Fairness Doctrine, but probably not for the same reasons you do. The whole thing is essentially moot, though, because no such bill will be passed and signed into law by Obama. I doubt any bills with such a doctrine will make it out of a congressional committee and if by some chance one does it will never be passed.

[Black Landlord]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Greg the dogsitter]
I'm just going to block everyone.

samintx wrote:
I guess if you don't agree 100% with someone here you block them, is that right? As if no person has a point to listen to? Ah, that sounds really rational. Just block messages from everyone you don't agree with...the American way?

You are trying to curtail my freedom to block somebody. All you conservatives jump to conclusions without connecting the dots and you make unsubstantiated generalizations.
Allow me.

Greg was joking. The idea of perusing the forum with every single member on "ignore" was meant to be absurd. It was h u m o r.
Well, irony, really.

[Black Landlord]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=Stizzealth]
Ted:

The reason that the Fairness Doctrine targets conservative talk show hosts more than liberal talk show hosts is that nobody listens to liberal talk radio. Radio station operators would have to host the liberal talk show hosts who get fewer listeners, and thus would have to charge less advertising money during those segment. It's much easier (and more profitable) for the station to just dump the conservative talk show host.

I didn't say that a Fairness Doctrine wouldn't disproportionately effect conservative talk shows. I was just deconstructing the argument you did try to make - and what you say in this post was not one of those points.

I actually don't think there should be a Fairness Doctrine, but probably not for the same reasons you do. The whole thing is essentially moot, though, because no such bill will be passed and signed into law by Obama. I doubt any bills with such a doctrine will make it out of a congressional committee and if by some chance one does it will never be passed.
But it's interesting how they can make some whacko claim and generate long heated discussions about it. It's almost as if the only strategy left for the right to try is to irritate and exhaust the left back into hopeless apathy with manufactured controversies.

[Ted King]

Black Landlord wrote:
Here you go taking one user's unrepresentative comments and proclaiming "a public call". You really don't understand the dynamics of this board or the people here very well.

Just to be clear... I said that if the parent post of this thread was indicative of the kinds of posts I am going to see frequently from Stizzealth then I'm not going to take him seriously. If someone thinks that implies that I am going to block Stizzealth - or calling for others to block him - then that person is making unjustified assumptions. I have never blocked anyone; I've never even threatened to block anyone. But if someone wants me to take them seriously then they need to take greater care in crafting arguments than Stizzealth did in the parent post. Just about everyone - certainly I know I do - makes a bad point occasionally when making an argument but that argument was riddled with fatuousness.

Also to be clear... when I said, "...if this post is indicative of the kinds of stuff we are going to being seeing posted from him then I'm not going to take him seriously - as I do people like kj", what I meant was that I do take kj seriously. I should have stated that better than I did.

[$tevie]

Gutenberg wrote:
Is this like the "War on Christmas?" It sounds like another fake issue concocted by the right to keep the base angry and energized.

That theory has my vote.

[Ted King]

Black Landlord wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=Greg the dogsitter]
I'm just going to block everyone.

samintx wrote:
I guess if you don't agree 100% with someone here you block them, is that right? As if no person has a point to listen to? Ah, that sounds really rational. Just block messages from everyone you don't agree with...the American way?

You are trying to curtail my freedom to block somebody. All you conservatives jump to conclusions without connecting the dots and you make unsubstantiated generalizations.
Allow me.

Greg was joking. The idea of perusing the forum with every single member on "ignore" was meant to be absurd. It was h u m o r.
Well, irony, really.
And what did you think I was trying to do?

[Gutenberg]

The righties get most of their exercise by jumping to conclusions. Then they do a little stretching of what was said. There's no profit in taking them seriously.