Palin: Dr. Laura no racist

[noonereal]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41288.html



If you listen to the entire dialog between Dr Laura and the caller it is obvious that Dr Laura is a racist. Why is Palin jumping in and why is she so understanding again?

As to Sarah, how come nigger is OK but retard is not?

[finnbow]

As to Sarah, how come nigger is OK but retard is not?

I'll give you two guesses, and the first one doesn't count. :rolleyes:

I think this is just more of the same old persecution thing going on. If a popular conservative says or does something stupid that gets them fired, it's liberal bias/persecution of conservatives. They can't openly admit that they have racists in their ranks. This way they can deny the existence of racists in their midst while at the same time pointing out the biases of everyone but themselves. Poor things.

[Fast_Eddie]

I haven't followed the story, but I did hear a clip of Dr. Laura from Larry King. She said she had to quit so she could have her first ammendment rights. So I assume Congress passed a law preventing Dr. Laura from saying pately offensive things.

If this is the case I think she is absolutely right. Congress has no right to pass a law to silence her even if she choses to say disgusting, offensive things.

[d-ray657]

What's ironic is that it was the marketplace that caused her to lose her job. Because she proved herself to be, if not an outright racist, clueless in issues of race, she ruined her own reputation. She turned the caller's hurt over a blatantly racist term into "being oversensitive." As a result of her pathetic performance as a radio "counselor," her sponsors started pulling their ads on her show. In other words, they spoke with their checkbooks.

When the market works against the worker and to the benefit of the investor class, that's just the way it is. When the market works against the right wing, they are being persecuted. She lost her sponsors, Rush Limbaugh lost his gig on ESPN because of his idiotic comments and he lost his opportunity to invest in the NFL because the investors thought his presence would cost the team money. Money talked, but in those instances they did not like what it said.:p

P.S. I'm sure they would have no problem with a plant firing a maintenance worker because he spoke out that he did not want to be exposed to Fox News at work, right Dave.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

i think you are correct and I am incorrect D. I think DR Laura proved she is clueless in issues of race not that she is necessarily a devout racist.

[d-ray657]

i think you are correct and I am incorrect D. I think DR Laura proved she is clueless in issues of race not that she is necessarily a devout racist.

I think it could be either, or both. It was certainly an attitude that "they" have a problem about being called that, not that it is necessarily a bad word. What is someone complained about people around her using the F-bomb, and she repeated it ten times? (of course that word would be bleeped, while the vile word she used wasn't?) What if someone was sensitive about people making comments about his assumed sexual orientation, and she threw the other f-bomb around? What if someone complained about sexually insensitive comments and she repeated the c-bomb? And then after the interview, she commented on the air about how overly sensitive the caller was. In any of those instances, she would prove her self to not be fit for the job.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

more good perspective, thanks

[BlueStreak]

P.S. I'm sure they would have no problem with a plant firing a maintenance worker because he spoke out that he did not want to be exposed to Fox News at work, right Dave.

Regards,

D-Ray

We had a guy, a salaried worker, that was sneaking into the breakroom and changing the channel, sometimes to CNN sometimes MSNBC, or the Local News. They put a lock on the cabinet and put up a notice that "No one is to tamper with the video equipment. Anyone caught in this cabinet without prior authorization will face disciplinary action."

You got that shit right.

Dave

[noonereal]

We had a guy, a salaried worker, that was sneaking into the breakroom and changing the channel, sometimes to CNN sometimes MSNBC, or the Local News. They put a lock on the cabinet and put up a notice that "No one is to tamper with the video equipment. Anyone caught in this cabinet without prior authorization will face disciplinary action."

You got that shit right.

Dave

that is just sad stuff

who is it that is evoking Soviet style tactics

this sounds very much like what my relatives told me they were required to watch when Poland was under the USSR umbrella

[BlueStreak]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41288.html



If you listen to the entire dialog between Dr Laura and the caller it is obvious that Dr Laura is a racist. Why is Palin jumping in and why is she so understanding again?

As to Sarah, how come nigger is OK but retard is not?

Of course. War is Peace, Love is Hate, Ignorance is Strength.

She was giving the caller a hard time about her interracial marriage because she "loves" the caller and wants to spare her the agony of dealing with people who might give her a hard time about her interracial marriage by convincing her to get a divorce and never make that mistake again. NOW, do you understand? Racism is good, just like greed is good and we ensure peace by going around beating the shit out of everyone who pisses us off.

Geez, what is it with you damn bleeding hearts, anyways?

Dave

[Boreas]

that is just sad stuff

who is it that is evoking Soviet style tactics

this sounds very much like what my relatives told me they were required to watch when Poland was under the USSR umbrella

You do understand that Conservatism is, at its core, authoritarian and repressive, right?

John

[noonereal]

You do understand that Conservatism is, at its core, authoritarian and repressive, right?

John


You know, that did cross my mind :rolleyes:

[merrylander]

You do understand that Conservatism is, at its core, authoritarian and repressive, right?

John

American soi-disent conservatism maybe.:rolleyes:

[Boreas]

American soi-disent conservatism maybe.:rolleyes:

Perhaps. We'll save this for another time. :O)

John

[whell]

You do understand that Conservatism is, at its core, authoritarian and repressive, right?

John

Can you contrast this with the personal freedom that Socialism / Communism / Fascism brings to its subjects?

[d-ray657]

Can you contrast this with the personal freedom that Socialism / Communism / Fascism brings to its subjects?

It is nonsensical to lump those three things together. Democracy can exist along side socialism and even in communism, but obviously not in fascism. Are you suggesting that the social democracies of western Europe are not indeed democracies? Do you think those people are any less free than the people who must hold their tongue lest their employer hear some criticism from them and deprive them of their means of livelihood?

Anyway, back to the topic of the OP. Is it legitimate to claim that one was deprived of their First Amendment rights simply because they were harshly criticized for saying something stupid?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Can you contrast this with the personal freedom that Socialism / Communism / Fascism brings to its subjects?

Well, my point was in reference to a political ideology but your response is directed at systems of government. It's sort of like comparing the Catholic Church to the Bible.

I think Social Democracies like, those in northern Europe, are unquestionably free societies. Whether people are freer un those countries than they are here, for instance, is a subject for debate but probably not for resolution.

Communist regimes (as found) not so much. Likewise Fascist ones (definitionally).

Your use of the term "personal freedom" begs the question of where you believe personal freedom ends and responsibility to the commons begins. For instance, a Libertarian, a Conservative and a Liberal would all value personal freedom but would likely both draw their boundaries at different points on a continuum and define the boundary differently.

Also, really parenthetically, your referring to people living in socialist, communist or fascist regimes as "subjects" does betray a certain barely perceptible bias in your question. :)

John

[merrylander]

I wonder, would The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway or Sweden be considered socialist? All of them are monarchies, offer universal healthcare, subsidized education, etc. I can't speak first hand for Norway and Sweden, but the Norwegians and Swedes I met in Geneva did not appear to be oppressed. We have been in both The Netherlands and Denmark and saw no signs of oppression. In fact, like many European countries the trains are on the honour system, it is rare to have anyone ask for your ticket. I will grant you that they don't serve catsup with the fries.:p

[whell]

Well, my point was in reference to a political ideology but your response is directed at systems of government. It's sort of like comparing the Catholic Church to the Bible.

I think Social Democracies like, those in northern Europe, are unquestionably free societies. Whether people are freer un those countries than they are here, for instance, is a subject for debate but probably not for resolution.

Communist regimes (as found) not so much. Likewise Fascist ones (definitionally).

Your use of the term "personal freedom" begs the question of where you believe personal freedom ends and responsibility to the commons begins. For instance, a Libertarian, a Conservative and a Liberal would all value personal freedom but would likely both draw their boundaries at different points on a continuum and define the boundary differently.

Also, really parenthetically, your referring to people living in socialist, communist or fascist regimes as "subjects" does betray a certain barely perceptible bias in your question. :)

John

Now, I'm confused even more. You stated this: "You do understand that Conservatism is, at its core, authoritarian and repressive, right?" The statement was in response to a post about "Soviet - style tactics" referenced by another poster. So, maybe my error, but I assumed that you were referring to Conservatism as it finds expression in governance.

Conservatism, of course, generally refers to a belief that social and / or governmental structures not be subject to rapid, if any, change. It can apply to the desires or aspirations thatindividuals may have about their system of government, and that was the context I was assuming you were referring to.

If a particular government / constitution contains individual freedom as a central theme, and the constitution is faithfully executed by elected leaders and citizens, then I'm not clear how a Conservatism in this context would be authoritarian and repressive. Alternatively, conservatism under Joseph Stalin might certainly find repression as a central theme.

[d-ray657]

An interesting dichotomy exists between conservatives and liberals in this country.

Generally, those in the current conservative movement articulate that the government should not be involved in regulating business or finance, but that regulation of what otherwise would be individual choices, child-bearing, marriage, recreational drug usage, sex-oriented entertainment, is appropriate on moral grounds. (To that extent conservatism might be considered repressive.) Property rights are paramount to all others. (One might also suggest that subservience to the direction of those who hold property is repressive as well).

A general statement of what are considered liberal principles, is that moral issues, such as those identified above, should be left to the individual, so long as the conduct does not deprive others of their rights. Property rights, however are subservient to the general good. We recognize that the ability to accumulate wealth depends on the presence of a just and stable society, which means an equitable distribution of the benefits of a just society. The ability to use one's property or run a business is subject to reasonable regulations to prevent such property use from doing harm to others. Reasonable minds can differ over the type of harms which government is empowered address, but I would expect that there is general agreement that one may not use his property in a manner that it creates a public nuisance.

I will only mention libertarians to the extent that they seem to believe that the government should stay the hell out of everything except what only the government can do (borders, defense, etc.)

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Now, I'm confused even more.

In the words of the Lone Ranger, "Tonto, our work here is done."

You stated this: "You do understand that Conservatism is, at its core, authoritarian and repressive, right?"

Did I say that? I don't think I said that. Are you sure I said that?

The statement was in response to a post about "Soviet - style tactics" referenced by another poster. So, maybe my error, but I assumed that you were referring to Conservatism as it finds expression in governance.

That's quite correct: Conservatism as a philosophy which expresses itself to varying degrees within a system of government. Conservatism is an ideology which finds expression in all forms of government but it is not in and of itself a governmental system.

Conservatism, of course, generally refers to a belief that social and / or governmental structures not be subject to rapid, if any, change. It can apply to the desires or aspirations that individuals may have about their system of government, and that was the context I was assuming you were referring to.

Yes. Again, the conservative ideology of rigid orthodoxy and social and institutional stasis can be found in all forms of government. It is always reactionary and repressive in my view. By its very nature, it can't be anything else. As to Conservatism's aspirational aspects, I'm not sure unless one can aspire to, you know, nothing - as in everything staying the same.

If a particular government / constitution contains individual freedom as a central theme, and the constitution is faithfully executed by elected leaders and citizens, then I'm not clear how a Conservatism in this context would be authoritarian and repressive. Alternatively, conservatism under Joseph Stalin might certainly find repression as a central theme.

Really? As a practical matter, how many times have you observed a constitutionally based government where the organizing documents are "faithfully executed by elected leaders and citizens"? I submit that one doesn't exist. As a theoretical matter, Conservatism can be, and usually is, antithetical to the growth and evolution of constitutional democracies. The resistance to all great social progress in this country, through constitutional means as well as legislative, was from the conservative elements (small and large C) in this country. I speak, for instance, of the 13th and 19th Amendments, the failed Equal Rights Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sorry if this comes across as scattered and less than coherent. I started it early this afternoon and then had to drop it to take care of some stuff. I had a hard time trying to regain my train of thought.

John

[BlueStreak]

"....not subject to rapid, if any change."? So, Conservatives wish to keep things as they are, Huh? So, maybe Goldwater should have stepped up to the podium in 1964 and said, "We should just leave well enough alone, things are just fine the way they are. Let's not change anything!" and Reagan should have said, "So what if PATCO wants to strike? That's what they've always done. So why change it now?" Maybe when the GOP regains power they'll leave everything just as it presently is? "Obamacare" and all...........

I suppose they also do not have their own form of "political correctness"?

Dave

[merrylander]

Conservatism, at least the brand practised by the former Progressive Conservative Party in Canada of which I was a member, can best be summarized by the expression "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water." It recognized that people are not all angels and therefore, unlike brands of socialism that attempt to make us all "love thy neighbour" it realized that is impossible but made damn sure we can't "screw thy neighbour" without penalty.

What so many here call freedom I would call license. It seems that people are against regulations because they interfere with theft, as witness the recent economic debacle. The systems here seem to blithly assume that greed does not exist, that all men are on the side of the angels, and that is patently absurd.

From my reading of Madison's Notes on the Debates in Philadelphia the Framers of the Constitution did not envisage a society where it is every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. Nor did they envisage the Balkan States of America with fifty different sets of rules.

Your mileage may vary.