Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
There are many smart, educated women who avoid posting on this board because they don't find fun in arguing with complete strangers about political topics (despite the fact that they even might - gasp - know a lot about those subjects)

That is exactly the point. Many women just don't like this kind of debate. It is too serious for them and they don't like the confrontational aspect to it.

They would rather talk about how people look and what clothes to buy. Even the educated ones, although, I don't count a degree in art history as qualifying one as educated. I wouldn't be surprised if you do, though.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
because they do not find it fun to argue ad nauseum with people about things that no one will change their minds on.

Yeah, there is a whole lotta mind changing going on on the FB.

Whether we change anyone's mind or not isn't the point of being here. A big part of being here is learning what the other side has to say and learning more about what those who share your political affiliation have to say. Simply because we find that interesting. You just don't get it, though, which was my point to begin with.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Tell me that RT or BRC or dtb or leagl or e/o or any number of other female posters here come off as uneducated dingbats.

That isn't the point. It is what you choose to get educated about (i.e., not physics and math) and what you do and do not enjoy doing.

Women with art history degrees don't threaten men. That is an acceptable girly degree to get. It is also an easy degree to get compared to a science or math degree. But those majors, with the exception of biology, are practically devoid of women at the college level. Not a whole lot of women electrical engineering majors, either.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
And, just so you have your facts straight next time you want to post something inane about the FB, the women there do not give tips about giving a better blow job. Thurgreed is the expert on that count (though I assume his expertise is not based on experience giving them).

No they banter about reality TV.

Hey, I am all for giving out make-up tips and making fun of the way other people look. It is great fun. The issue for me is when that is all you are interested in or when women shy away from more serious discussions.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Think about how far we've come how quickly when it's a bad day because the Massachusetts legislature is amending its constitution to forbid gay marriage but allow civil unions.

Wonkette:

• Massachusetts will ban gay marriage, but will also install the right to same-sex civil unions, "to provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law."
  
  This is supposedly a compromise, but we're having trouble seeing what the anti-gay marriage folks got out of the deal. It's not like they also outlawed white dresses and bad cover bands. Are they going to stand outside Unitarian churches with signs? "You're not really married! Nah-nah-nah-nah!" Or, "We saved divorce for the people who really need it"? The big question: Will they be able to compel gays to drink from the "homos only" water fountain?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Who is this Halliburton guy? Some pal of Grover Cleveland? Why do you keep talking about this stuff when no one else cares?

When I don't care what you guys talk about I don't complain. Just because I'm not part of the "in crowd" and don't know all the "hot topics" doesn't mean I'm not smart Ty.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113951,00.html

[House Passes Indecency Bill]

It baffles me that no one, other than Howard Stern, is speaking up against this. Isn't this what you lefties are supposed to be all about? How the hell are these fines not chilling?

Exactly 19 congressmen voted against this bill. 1 GOP and 18 DEMS.

I don't have a problem with regulating the public airwaves. Stern is free to get his message out on cable TV or the Internet or in a movie.

I have more of a problem with the fact that certain corporations are allowed to dominate the public ariwaves.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Put aside the question of the power to revoke licenses for "indencency" (whatever that means). Do you now see the difference between a $25,000 fine and a $500,000 fine? Do you not see the difference between fining the individual performer $11,000 after the second offense, versus $500,000 after the first offense?

I see a difference, but I don't see it as a problem. The fines before were too low and did not provide a deterrant. This is why the standards were ignored. The fines were no big deal.

Club, the issue for you seems to be that the public airwaves are regulated at all. While I consider myself a moderate and libertarian-like in my thinking, I just don't have a problem with there being some content regulation of that which is broadcast on the public airwaves.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Because the fines are bigger and therefore less likely to be challenged or fought? Please.

IF you want better enforcement, you jawbone and vet the nominees to get their word they will enforce. And stand behind the inevitable legal challenges.

Even if you enforce a $25,000 fine against a corporate conglomerate like Clear Channel, it has no deterrrant effect.

I think the fines should be on a sliding scale based on corporate earnings or something like that. Even these larger fines aren't much of a deterrant to the big guys.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I see a difference, but I don't see it as a problem. The fines before were too low and did not provide a deterrant. This is why the standards were ignored. The fines were no big deal.

Club, the issue for you seems to be that the public airwaves are regulated at all. While I consider myself a moderate and libertarian-like in my thinking, I just don't have a problem with there being some content regulation of that which is broadcast on the public airwaves.

I don't think they should be regulated, but I accept that my position is not realistic. But if you are going to regulate them, the standards for acceptability must be clear. What the fuck is "indecency"? One man's or woman's is another's run of the mill. And how are the standards set? Is it basically Powell's idea of what is decent? The court's? Is it just words that are indecent, or are there indecent ideas? The "I know it when I see it approach" just leaves too much room for individual discretion and persecution.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Not Me
That is exactly the point. Many women just don't like this kind of debate. It is too serious for them and they don't like the confrontational aspect to it.

They would rather talk about how people look and what clothes to buy. Even the educated ones, although, I don't count a degree in art history as qualifying one as educated. I wouldn't be surprised if you do, though.

Yeah, there is a whole lotta mind changing going on on the FB.

Whether we change anyone's mind or not isn't the point of being here. A big part of being here is learning what the other side has to say and learning more about what those who share your political affiliation have to say. Simply because we find that interesting. You just don't get it, though, which was my point to begin with.

That isn't the point. It is what you choose to get educated about (i.e., not physics and math) and what you do and do not enjoy doing.

Women with art history degrees don't threaten men. That is an acceptable girly degree to get. It is also an easy degree to get compared to a science or math degree. But those majors, with the exception of biology, are practically devoid of women at the college level. Not a whole lot of women electrical engineering majors, either.

No they banter about reality TV.

Hey, I am all for giving out make-up tips and making fun of the way other people look. It is great fun. The issue for me is when that is all you are interested in or when women shy away from more serious discussions.

If you really think I'm going to get in a debate with you about this shit you are crazy. It is not because I shy away from serious discussions. It is not because I have wasted my life being only educated about things that are unimportant in your little world. It is because I've watched enough of your arguing style to know that you are not worth my time. Frankly I'm surprised that anyone here bothers to "debate" you about anything because I have not seen you answer one hard question that has been asked of you here. All you do is spout off the same repetitive shit over and over again without stepping up to the merits of the argument.

I actually read this board a fair amount and I have opinions on a lot of the topics that are discussed. I just don't feel the need to post my opinions on those topics here on a regular basis. For whatever reason. Maybe it is because I'm a frightened little girl who is scared of confrontation or maybe it is because they are fairly similar to those expressed by others here and I don't feel the need to add into the fray or maybe it is because of one-trick ponies such as yourself.

Happy Friday.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
It is because I've watched enough of your arguing style to know that you are not worth my time.

If you believe that then you are in favor of polygamy.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
[rant filled with name calling and no substance]

First, I thought you said you don't read my posts. Second, you would rather not debate, just rant and name-call. Not that I am against name calling. It just needs to be humorous name calling or have some other redeeming quality, other than you feeling better by doing it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I actually read this board a fair amount and I have opinions on a lot of the topics that are discussed. I just don't feel the need to post my opinions on those topics here on a regular basis. For whatever reason. Maybe it is because I'm a frightened little girl who is scared of confrontation or maybe it is because they are fairly similar to those expressed by others here and I don't feel the need to add into the fray or maybe it is because of one-trick ponies such as yourself.

Happy Friday.

I read/post on this board frequently, and almost never engage in anything other than snide/cheap/snarky asides. The reason isn't that I'm stupid, althought on Fashion I am often advised to wear a helmet, the reasons do include the following: 1)the same arguments come up frequently, and go no wear differently 2) the arguments often spin in a direction where another poster is way more knowledgable (think Burger-antitrust) and 3) EVERYONE has a preset position on everything, so that the arguing nevers changes anyone's position.

the above are reasons why a rationale person, such as ncs, might forgoe the joy of long arguments here. on the other hand it is the perfect vehicle for snide/cheap/snarky asides- always in good humor I assure you all. Thank you.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think they should be regulated, but I accept that my position is not realistic. But if you are going to regulate them, the standards for acceptability must be clear. What the fuck is "indecency"? One man's or woman's is another's run of the mill. And how are the standards set? Is it basically Powell's idea of what is decent? The court's? Is it just words that are indecent, or are there indecent ideas? The "I know it when I see it approach" just leaves too much room for individual discretion and persecution.

I agree that it is nebulous, but what do you propose be used as a standard?

I think even Howard knows where the line is. He just doesn't like that there are any lines at all that he cannot cross.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
EVERYONE has a preset position on everything, so that the arguing nevers changes anyone's position.

I am positive that I have changed people's minds regarding the appendix being a vestigial organ.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am positive that I have changed people's minds regarding the appendix being a vestigial organ.

True. I used to not care. Now I am affirmatively hostile to the issue.

(Hank, is that the proper snarky tone? I want to get this right.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree that it is nebulous, but what do you propose be used as a standard?

I think even Howard knows where the line is. He just doesn't like that there are any lines at all that he cannot cross.

I think we need a standard that would serve at least 2 functions -certainty (to the broadcasters) and visibility (to the public).

There should be no restrictions on ideas, other than those already covered by the 1st amendment (e.g. "fire"). Rather only the manner in which the ideas are presented should be regulated. I'm thinking along the lines of the 7 dirty word test, i.e., here are actual words (not just - words that cannote sex or something similarly vague) you cannot say. If you can find a way to express your ideas without using those precise words you are in the clear.

[edited for spelling]