Hate Speech 101

Amidst the polarity of partisan pundits jousting away, I've noticed one thing glaringly stand out. I noticed that conservative talk shows are routinely popular whereas liberal talk shows do not get the near the ratings of their counterparts.After the abysmal performance by Air America, which flopped after only two years of it being on the air, fringe liberals have taken to the airwaves again with a much publicized effort of NOVA M RADIO. I say "fringe liberals" because quite frankly its application is astoundingly radical in nature, not like the more moderate liberals I know.My wife and I tuned in last night for the first time after seeing billboards put up all over the city. I'm not exaggerating when I say within the first minute (i.e. 60 seconds), we heard what sounded like mean-spirited children on a playground. The amount of childish ad hominem used by grown men to support their distaste of everything conservative could have been laughable if it weren't so sad and pathetic.Whenever a conservative caller joined the fray they were immediately met with not just overt hostility, but they were absolutely flamed and wouldn't be allowed to speak. The host, Mike Malloy, stated, "Don't overtalk me. You must be some kind of conservative idiot. You're a jackass. Don't do that to me. Right wingers are not welcome on this show. I'm not interested in playing with you idiots and morons. Don't call me because I don't like you. Go somewhere else with your jive turkey talk. Freak."Wow... Cerebral.... Malloy's tirade is in direct contradiction of the way conservative radio handles its broadcast. Disagreements and varying opinions are often encouraged on most of the conservative talk shows I've listened to. Its eloquent, polite, intelligent, thoughtful-- basically everything opposite of what I heard on NOVA which was hateful, spiteful, vindictive, childish, nonsensical, unintelligent, etc... What's progressive about that?Is it any wonder why liberals themselves seem to prefer listening to conservative radio over their own ilk's?With having said all of that, I'd like to hear from our resident liberals if this kind of behavior is embarrassing or liberating or humorous? What kind of appeal is there in it?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

If simply listening to a radio broadcast equals people "telling you what to do," then by your own admission, The Young Turks and Democracy Now tell you what to do.Or we just like the dialogue of our respective channels bring. That's putting it mildly. Sean Hannity is no where in the same ballpark as Malloy. Hannity and Olbermann are more analagous in the way they argue. Malloy is just on another level of anger. The man needs some counseling.

quote:

---

Malloy's tirade is in direct contradiction of the way conservative radio handles its broadcast.

---

Earth... Welcome to it. Not even in the same ballpark, again. If Hannity, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh are considered inflammatory, then so is Olbermann. I actually enjoy Olbermann to a degree. He's witty, he's not a complete fringe liberal lunatic, he makes good arguments, its intelligent, and its humorous, none of which could be heard on Air America, and from what little I heard of Nova M last night, it won't be found there either. I don't know what that acronym stands for so I can't comment on it. I don't know what the Obama-madrassa myth is, so I can't comment on that either. They write great books. And whether or not you agree with the thrust of the argument, I doubt you could claim otherwise. The only callers dumped are irrational screamers who don't have an actual point, they just repeat mantra's, like, "Bush lied, kids died." You can't speak to a person like that and trying to just degrades the show and wastes everyone's time. The soft-spoken, articulate callers with an actual point are encouraged to stay. This is completely opposite of what I have heard in the past with Air America and now so far what I've heard on NOVA who will simply dump the call, call you every name in the book, simply because of their political view. Democracy Now is unmistakably left, but they aren't insane in their approach. The host is soft-spoken and simply presents the issues that concern her. That's what should be expected. I have the most basic cable there is right now. I no longer watch O'Reilly, Olbermann, Hannity and Colmes, etc. And that reason would be?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

You have it backwards in your attempt to throw yourself and political persuasion a pity party. Liberals have the loudest voice, bar none, and utilize to that gain footing. The liberal echo chamber is a constant source of leftist sound bites.The only avenue that is clearly dominated by conservatives is radio talk shows and books that routinely go to number one. Movies, television, or any other apparatus that provides visual stimuli is unmistakably dominated by progressives.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I haven't heard Limbaugh speak in about 8 years. I guess the cities I choose to live in can't stomach him, even amongst conservatives. That is probably due to his proneness to justify any and all conservatives simply by virtue of association and due to his antagonistic tone.I think another reason why not too many modern conservatives give him mention is because he's too far to the right, to the point where he believes the right can do no wrong. That's fanatical and whether its extremism to the right or left doesn't much matter because the truth is usually found somewhere in between the extreme left view and the extreme right view. Mike Malloy is a firebrand and that is the one we heard the other night. Last night my wife called in the show to debate him and she made it past the screener and was scheduled to speak, but he and another caller were taking up most of the show. She may try again this evening. And to be fair, some of the other segments are not quite as virulent as Malloy's, but in my opinion they are equally misguided on the issues.For instance, somebody called in the show, (I'm certain it was a prank call that went over his head) and the caller said something to the effect of: " Yeah, I started working at Wal-Mart and when I got my paycheck they took out all of this money of mine for something called FICA. Wal-Mart is the evil because they took my money."Malloy responded, "Ah yes, Wal-Mart strikes again. You see people, this just shows that those cronies of the right actually want to keep people poor." What? They're called "taxes," something that Malloy and his ilk love and want to deduct more of. And yet he indicts Wal-Mart for taking out FICA, but I'm certain that on his own paycheck he'd see the same deductions.I also should comment that I agree with you on the assessment that some see angels and others see devils depending on their general outlook. As much as I think both parties, in theory, would like to eradicate partisan politics because of the nasty rift its caused, it seems unlikely that they'll go away because of the diametric opposites in rationale.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Well, that's the whole point. The man is like 60 years old and will probably be drawing from his FICA pension soon. How can someone of his age not know what FICA is, yet somehow be given his own talk show? Its truly stultifying. Societies do not work without three classic tiers-- the rich, the middle class, and the poor. That's just a fact. Ideally, any healthy society should have more middle class than anyone else. But the idea that some governmental system can eradicate the lower class altogether is completely unrealistic.Among the caste of elitists that liberals by and large adore, they create a false illusion that higher education is somehow going to be the bastion of hope. But this logic fails. They think everyone needs a college education. That's simply not true on so many levels. Not everyone is cut out for college-- they just aren't. And those without it shouldn't be looked down upon as if they are social lepers. To put it bluntly, how effective or how purposeful would a society be if everyone had a college education? What would make their qualifications any more special? The job market would be swamped with too many people with same qualifications which would completely undermine the purpose of having that education to begin with.That's exactly what is happening in America today. Now or days, you have to at least a four year degree, be it in Criminal Justice or Underwater Basket Weaving, just to join about 65% of the police forces in America today. That's silly and its placing too much emphasis on an education that means very little in application to the actual job.I don't know how many people have a college education and not a single one of them work in the field of their education-- even friends with a Master's degree. And I of those that have a standard four year, some are even struggling for work both in the field of their study and in other job markets where a degree, period, is required.There is a book out now called, "What's wrong with Vocational School?" The answer is: Nothing. Nothing is wrong with it. There is too much emphasis on college these days, which, lets be honest, has seriously turned into a liberal whine factory that often teaches nothing applicable to the degree the student is aspiring to. In New Zealand you don't have to take all of these Humanities course or "Basic Requirement" studies. Instead, you actually train in the field you want to work in, which makes way too much sense to be applied here. Yes, but somebody has to do it. Who would take out the trash if everyone had a college degree? Who would work in the factories if everyone had a degree? What motivation exists without an actual incentive? The Waltons. I don't agree with much of the way Wal-Mart handles its business, especially where they have placed such a large emphasis on the Chinese market that, no doubt, will over take us economically in the next 15 years if we continue in this trend. However, Wal-Mart, as a corporation, as a business, can't be faulted for the economy when they have learned how to dominate that niche.You might say, "easy for you to say, you aren't destitute." Well, actually, I am. The corporation I work for is suffering all-time lows due to some setbacks. And I only work strictly commissioned based pay which means that I often don't generate a high enough revenue. That forces me to find menial jobs on occasion, as little as minimum wage. There is no question that the minimum wage in this country is deplorable. The increases only mirrors the average inflation rate, which means, that no one is actually making more money, they are instead just rolling with times.But even in spite of this there is a real need for this economic status, because without it, the economy would plummet which would send the entire nation into a recession.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Can you explain your objection please?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Is that AM or FM? I mostly listen to CD's, but if I listen to the radio, its usually 93.1. You may be right about that. I still haven't listened to him in many years though.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I said that ideally a healthy society has to have its middle class as the largest of the tiers, because that's true. The existence of the poor is simply a reality that will never, ever go away, no matter how hard you try. The proof is in the pudding with the catastrophic failure of Marxism, Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism. The removal of incentives is always the single downfall of all communist-based ideologies. Communism only works in a perfect world where every one can drone on in robotic fashion. When that system breaks down, and it always does, the only way to remove the problem is to get rid of those who do not produce. Economics is a very difficult filed to endeavor because there are so many variables introduced. That doesn't mean that arguments can't be made. A profit system is an effective monitoring tool to evaluate the economic progress of a country or a corporation.By rewarding success and allowing failure to penalize those who make poor business choices, it redirects resources away from the inefficient which forces them to perfect their craft. And because it is competitive, it emphasizes on optimal performance which yields the healthiest economy. You can apply this philosophy in Darwinian terms with the survival of the fittest.Without competition, there is no incentive. Without incentive, there is no motivation. And that is what fosters most of the poverty and misery-- see Cuba for details. That's what makes the lower class tier larger than the middle and upper class in society, whereas the healthiest economy has an extremely large middle class, and smaller, but equally important upper and lower classes.I have a friend who details cars for a large auto auction. He does not get payed an hourly wage, but rather, he gets payed 25 dollars for each car that he details. Its genius of this company to do it this way because it fosters incentive to crank up the work production which is not only better for the upper class, but the lower class too. Everybody wins with this model. If they payed him hourly, there is no incentive to work fast, which slows production. The only real incentive he has is just doing a job well enough not to get fired. But paying him per car ensures that he's motivated to get more cars detailed. Now, in the event that he's going too fast where his performance is starting to suffer, by getting too greedy, he is deducted 10 dollars. So now, not only does he have an incentive to do the cars fast, but he also has an incentive to do a good job detailing them.This is a classic analogy for capitalism and why it works for out best for everyone in that society. The reality is that no human system can achieve heaven on earth-- though so many have tried and just turned it into hell on earth instead. But capitalism is the most pragmatic approach to an insoluble dilemma.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Granted. Your point is duly noted. If you can name me one political/economic institution that successfully eradicated poverty, or name me one civilization that has achieved this, I will gladly concede. The enticement of socialized programs like socialized healthcare and welfare is that provides for us the appearance of an expedient system with long lasting goals. Usually, for about the first 5 to 15 years, citizens enjoy a great time of prosperity under the plan. But the bubble always bursts because need always beats out the alloted costs. And in the event of a war or a natural disaster, those funds that are supposed to be going to health care will gobbled up, sending the system in a downward spiral. It doesn't need any help with that as it is, because people are already on long waiting lists to receive care.Plus, why spend upwards of fifty percent of your paycheck to pay for things you likely won't need when you could just pay a small monthly premium that will pay for more in the long run and grant you access to critical care immediately?Each country that has tried it now suffers many setbacks and many unanticipated challenges. The articles I'm going to present is specified to health care, but it elucidates the premise. United KingdomEuropean UnionCanadaNew ZealandAustraliaHaving said that, I in no way am in full support of the current methodology in the United States, especially not the HMO system. I'm interested in purchasing a book by Dr. David Gratzer, called, The Cure". I'm interested to read what he has to say about the whole matter, especially since he has personally critiqued both the Canadian and US health care systems. No, no, no, I'm not talking about the starving homeless, I'm speaking about people who are considered, economically, just above the poverty line or the lower middle class. No, I'm simply saying that the poor will always exist, though they should certainly aspire to at least the middle class. But, from solely an economic point of view, without injecting any kind of emotion in it, the three classes serve a purpose for the overall survival of the economy. By focusing on only the poor by socializing everything, that very system that is desgined to bring people out of poverty, inevitably drags every one into poverty. We've seen that over and over again with the failures of Communism. So do Communists. But history serves to show who the real devil is-- them. It depends on the condition of the car. Some of the cars are repossessed but were not well-maintained, which takes about fifteen minutes from start to finish. Other cars are fairly new and were taken care of which is a five minute touch-up. We'll just average that at 10 minutes per car, for 7 hours a day, so as to not include a lunch break. Not really. They're just detailing cars. Things like HVAC, plumbers, carpenters and electricians are considered skilled labor. What do you mean? They are payed much, much higher than minimum wage. The employer could hire for minimum wage, and save money that way, but production might be much slower because there is no real incentive to work hard, only the fear of not working hard enough because they'll get fired. In which case, the employer ends up losing more money in the long run. I don't either. One tangent leads to another.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

The existence of the poor is simply a reality that will never, ever go away, no matter how hard you try.

---

"Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages. "He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

​

"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. " It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." -John 12:4-8

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I'm not sure why you think you really have something on me, but by all means revel in your pile of dirt. YOU introduced the Bible into the discussion, and I'm giving you a specific verse, quoted from your Master, which says that the poor will always be with us.So, please explain to me what kind of point you think you've made? Either the Bible is not the authority, in which case, don't ever quote from it, or it is, which validates my usage of it.You seem to cherry pick whenever it suits your agenda. Either believe in it or don't. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Because you sourced the Bible as an appeal to my better judgment, I'm showing you that God Himself stated that we will always have the poor among us. Either remain consistent in your assessment that the Bible is just a guide, and thereby, shouldn't use it to try and defend your mole hill. And if you do try to use it as leverage, then don't casually dismiss another piece of Scripture that brings your entire position into disrepute. I think that we're not here to save the world. I think we're here to make the life of one person better. It seems that those who try to save the entire world end up messing it up even worse than it was compared to the person who makes a little difference along the way. To think there is any humanistic system that is going to eradicate poverty is in for some heartache. Its about the person who volunteers at a soup kitchen, who by their small contribution, ends up makes a big difference in the lives they touched.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

If you can name me one political/economic institution that successfully eradicated poverty, or name me one civilization that has achieved this, I will gladly concede.

---

That's more than relevant being that mankind has had more ample chances to stamp it out. I find it a bit incredulous that those who don't believe in heaven seem to believe in Utopian ideals with ease. Give me a break. The idea that conditions of the poor is eternal is realistic, however, we never stop trying to ameliorate poverty. True poverty is good for no human being and its no good for any society, because it depletes resources. But, again, we aren't talking about poverty, we were talking about the economy. Perhaps "purpose" is the wrong word here. What I mean to say is that it reflects the ratio of jobs per population. In other words, its the reality. Since not everyone should be payed the same wage, because some jobs are vastly more complicated than others that require special training, not every one is going to live well. Some jobs are going to be menial. Since we are payed by the merit of the job, it is necessary for some people to take up those jobs.For some reason, there is this negative attitude about those who take menial jobs. Either we feel sorry for them or we look down on them. I don't think either attitude is good for that person because it unduly stigmatizes them, somehow invalidating their efforts. No, that's a bit more involved. Detailing is car washing/drying, polishing, cleaning the rims, spraying down the interior with Armor-All, cleaning the windows, vacuuming the interior, etc. The only drawback to it is that its monotonous work. Its not exactly a job someone might not derive a sense of fulfillment from it, and there are some funky fumes in the shop that probably isn't good to breathe in for prolonged periods.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis