Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote:Is a reason that they get good ratings possibly because people like me (who disagree with 80% of what they say) still enjoy listening to them?

I remember some FOX news numbers that put the number of left leaning college age kids as a significant portion of their viewing audience, presumably they were all in it for the lolz. It wasn't more than about a 1/3 at any time, but it was frequently bigger than CNN's whole audience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.

Yeah, you accept the hand your dealt. And if you're lucky, you look and see what other people are dealing with and you help them if you can. And that extends to society, we as a whole look to build structures that aim to stop as many people as possible slipping through the cracks.

But I shouldn't have to write that. It's very obvious. You're being disingenuous in approaching this issue purely at the personal level of the victim, and not considering through the eyes of the wealthy, or of society as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grignard wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Morality is irrelevant. Its life. You play the hand you're dealt.

Take that religions of the world !

This is what boggles me about how people have managed to mesh this philosophy with Christian faith. I mean, I used to have those same political convictions, but I wasn't that religious. I've read the Bible, and from my experience the J.C. wasn't big on hoarding wealth.

Yeah, all that stuff about charity and good works is kind of problem, but don't worry, there's conservatives fixing that!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

They're re-writing the bible to take out all the liberal bias that's gotten in there. Seriously.

I love conservapedia, even just because it's impossible to tell the trolls from the serious members.

Vene wrote:I love conservapedia, even just because it's impossible to tell the trolls from the serious members.

Windmills are a liberal boondoggle and certainly not an example of engineering.

The Schlaflys are all quite batty.

sebster wrote:

This is what boggles me about how people have managed to mesh this philosophy with Christian faith. I mean, I used to have those same political convictions, but I wasn't that religious. I've read the Bible, and from my experience the J.C. wasn't big on hoarding wealth.

Yeah, all that stuff about charity and good works is kind of problem, but don't worry, there's conservatives fixing that!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

They're re-writing the bible to take out all the liberal bias that's gotten in there. Seriously.

It does seem over the top, even for the Schlafys, but given how nutty that family is I wouldn't presume that its fake. Then again, I also wouldn't presume that its representative of conservatism. There are some pretty well known (and not necessarily respectable) conservative bloggers that have sounded off against that particular part of conservapedia.

dogma wrote:It does seem over the top, even for the Schlafys, but given how nutty that family is I wouldn't presume that its fake. Then again, I also wouldn't presume that its representative of conservatism. There are some pretty well known (and not necessarily respectable) conservative bloggers that have sounded off against that particular part of conservapedia.

As far as I can tell, it's real. After all, this is also the guy who thinks that the theory of relativity is bogus.

dogma wrote:It does seem over the top, even for the Schlafys, but given how nutty that family is I wouldn't presume that its fake. Then again, I also wouldn't presume that its representative of conservatism. There are some pretty well known (and not necessarily respectable) conservative bloggers that have sounded off against that particular part of conservapedia.

I have no idea who the Schalfys are. Is that something that I could look up on wikipedia or some such thing?

Yeah. At the very least the mother should have a wikipedia entry, she has some pull with th Republican establishment.

Well the "strength" of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it, so why don't you make an entry for her>

Or do you have to be tight with Jimmy Wales now?

Kilkrazy wrote:Well the "strength" of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it, so why don't you make an entry for her>

Or do you have to be tight with Jimmy Wales now?

The entry would likely be removed or deleted before it went live. Everyone can create or edit things on wikipedia, but the chances of making it through the mod patrols for more than a few hours is slim.

Kilkrazy wrote:Well the "strength" of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it, so why don't you make an entry for her>

Or do you have to be tight with Jimmy Wales now?

No need.

The founder of conservadpedia.

The mother of the founder of conservapedia

Phyllis Schlafly is noted for stating that she does not believe that rape can occur under the auspices of marriage.

dogma wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Well the "strength" of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it, so why don't you make an entry for her>

Or do you have to be tight with Jimmy Wales now?

No need.

The founder of conservadpedia.

The mother of the founder of conservapedia

Phyllis Schlafly is noted for stating that she does not believe that rape can occur under the auspices of marriage.

Most of it was of the extreme end of the spectrum, and while I may not agree with it, it wasn't all wacko. That particular line though is really weird, and made my skin crawl just a little.

It is merely the traditional view of marriage which applied legally in the UK until 1994. It was held that by contracting marriage, the wife had given perpetual consent to intercourse with her husband.

Personally I don't agree with it, but I can understand a older, socially conservative person hewing to that line.