TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Rush on Sean
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rush on Sean - Page 3

post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post

It is called, "Rules" and children need to be taught them and follow them, it is good experience for later life because we all have to follow rules.
Yes rules have to be followed but they need to be sensible rules, to teach the kids the social norms and to make sure they are learning. If the rules have nothing to do with those two and are put there just to teach the kids to follow some kind of rule, then it's totally the wrong approach IMO because it undermines their ability to think for themselves and be able to distinguish between what they should and shouldn't do.
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
What are the "right approaches"? More freedom? I say, bring back corporal punishment and get those punks in line.
There is always home schooling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p51I...eature=related
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by PookieBoy View Post
Please clarify: What campaign against SUV's and what taxes on fattening foods????
Have you not had your TV or radio on the last two years?

In Paris:

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct...d/fg-deflate10

California:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3064821.stm

Those are just two older ones, but with a quick Google search, you can find thousands of examples.

The Fat Tax:

Tax the fat people: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boos...ma-places.html

Tax the fattening food, according to WHO: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boos...ma-places.html

And New York thinks it's a great idea: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/37...on-drinks.html

Need any more?
post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
Yes rules have to be followed but they need to be sensible rules, to teach the kids the social norms and to make sure they are learning. If the rules have nothing to do with those two and are put there just to teach the kids to follow some kind of rule, then it's totally the wrong approach IMO because it undermines their ability to think for themselves and be able to distinguish between what they should and shouldn't do.
there's probably a good reason for forbidding them. i can think of one - schools [especially public schools] have kids from all socio-economic levels. using a high-priced electronic device openly can lead to theft [at the least]. more issues - parents are irate that their child's expensive item was stolen, & don't understand that the school can't be 'judge & jury' for the alleged thief [after all, their child doesn't lie!] so it's easier for the school to simply not allow such things. then, if a student choosed to use one, the school can't be held liable if one is used [against policy] & then stolen.
could also cut down on hallway scuffles/fights over said items.
then, there's the whole issue of cheating - texting [being silent] can be used to cheat on tests.
post #65 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
there's probably a good reason for forbidding them. i can think of one - schools [especially public schools] have kids from all socio-economic levels. using a high-priced electronic device openly can lead to theft [at the least]. more issues - parents are irate that their child's expensive item was stolen, & don't understand that the school can't be 'judge & jury' for the alleged thief [after all, their child doesn't lie!] so it's easier for the school to simply not allow such things. then, if a student choosed to use one, the school can't be held liable if one is used [against policy] & then stolen.
could also cut down on hallway scuffles/fights over said items.
then, there's the whole issue of cheating - texting [being silent] can be used to cheat on tests.
Hmm, I guess it's all about protecting the school anyway. I tend to forget we live in a country where everyone sues for all kinds of randomness..
post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
"Correctional Facilities", are you serious. The kids are in control now.

Not wear headphones, or use a cell phone in the hallways? Oh the horror of it, it must be just like being in jail.

It is called, "Rules" and children need to be taught them and follow them, it is good experience for later life because we all have to follow rules.

"Dehumanized", holy cow, I am speechless. Those poor, poor children, they are so abused.

What are the "right approaches"? More freedom? I say, bring back corporal punishment and get those punks in line.
Cindy, I have to agree with you on this one --- except for the corporal punishment.
post #67 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
Cindy, I have to agree with you on this one --- except for the corporal punishment.
I'd agree, and make the parents do the discipline.
post #68 of 85
Rush wants Obama to fail because if he succeeds, he won't have much of a radio show.
post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
Yes rules have to be followed but they need to be sensible rules, to teach the kids the social norms and to make sure they are learning. If the rules have nothing to do with those two and are put there just to teach the kids to follow some kind of rule, then it's totally the wrong approach IMO because it undermines their ability to think for themselves and be able to distinguish between what they should and shouldn't do.
Ok, here's my question. If the school doesn't apply rules, where does it stop?? It doesn't matter if it makes sense, they are trying to instill the idea that they can't do anything they want. If they allow cell phones and ipods in the halls, why not let them bring in their laptops and play video games during class.

First of all, it's SCHOOL! There are some things that just not appropriate. Just like a job. Using cell phones (except for emergency) and listening to music is just not acceptible, IMO. They are there to do one thing, and that's learn. That is what school is about. Not keeping in contact with their friends, not listening to music, they are there to learn. It doesn't matter if it is a "sensible" rule, it is a school rule and it has to be followed. I never understood why I couldn't chew gum in class but I learned to follow it. As much as I didn't like it.

What would happen if someone was sitting with their eyes closed listening to their Ipod and a fire alarm went off? Would he hear it? Would he move? Or would he be trapped by the time he smelled the smoke? Something to think about.
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
Yes rules have to be followed but they need to be sensible rules, to teach the kids the social norms and to make sure they are learning. If the rules have nothing to do with those two and are put there just to teach the kids to follow some kind of rule, then it's totally the wrong approach IMO because it undermines their ability to think for themselves and be able to distinguish between what they should and shouldn't do.
I know it's hard to imagine, but the rules at school are actually much the same as the rules in the real world. Guess what? It sucks out here too! But if you want to be a productive member of society, you learn to live with whatever rules are imposed.

We have dress codes too - business attire, business casual, etc. We can't use our cell phones whenever we want, can't text on the job.

I have zero "privacy" at work - when I was out for a few days my co-worker went through everything on my desk, including my personal things, because she needed to find something. It would have been much easier for her to call me to find where I filed it, but since she thinks of herself as my supervisor she went through everything. Oh well, such is life. It's all in company property so I would have no recourse. They've looked at my emails (when they thought I was emailing my husband too much...which happened because they didn't like him calling, so I told him to email me which I could ignore if I was busy). It's their email account on their computer so they have that right. (They did see my side after I explained it to them...he was working from home and thought that a lot of stuff was important that wasn't to me when I was at work, and he wanted to share. Emails I could ignore, phones I couldn't because I answer the phones.)


Sounds a lot like the rules at school, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat
Rush wants Obama to fail because if he succeeds, he won't have much of a radio show.
Rush actually explained this more in depth. (I listen to him on the way home from lunch and the way back - max 20 minutes each day...) He doesn't necessarily want him to fail as a person. He has nothing against him in that way. But yes, he does want his policies to fail. Hey, so do I! He doesn't believe in the policies that Obama has outlined. He doesn't believe in a more socialistic ideology.

I know for sure that all of the commentators on Air America wanted Bush to fail, both his policies and him as a person. They made that clear every day.

And BTW, if you read the transcript from Part II of Rush on Hannity, he doesn't blame anyone but the Republican Party for their downfall. He says they are trying to be a party of appeasement like the Dems, and that's not who they are. They have lost the message, lost the focus and lost their way of being true conservatives.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481985,00.html
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
Rush wants Obama to fail because if he succeeds, he won't have much of a radio show.
Keep in mind Rush got his start during a Republican Presidency and did just fine during the past Republican Presidency. I personally think his star has been fading for a long time, but any political commentator has plenty of fodder, no matter who is in office.
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Have you not had your TV or radio on the last two years?

Ouch!
I, like most people [I believe], tend to read things that peak or further my interest. I simply do have the time to read a newspaper cover to cover. Although your LATimes articles DID peak my interest. I just may have to add them to "My Favorites".

In Paris:

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct...d/fg-deflate10

This one cracked me up!

California:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3064821.stm

Those are just two older ones, but with a quick Google search, you can find thousands of examples.

The Fat Tax:

Tax the fat people: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boos...ma-places.html

Tax the fattening food, according to WHO: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boos...ma-places.html

And New York thinks it's a great idea: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/37...on-drinks.html

Hmmm, wonder if taxes like that would fall under the umbrella known as "Sin Taxes"?

Need any more?
No, but thanks for the links.

You know, I just thought of something. Is not the cost of a life insurance policy higher for smokers?
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
I've always been curious about why there are so many conservative radio shows and so many liberal TV shows....
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Semi-sarcastic response to first part: Probably because conservatives have jobs and thus have to make due with listening to the radio. So the market is there, which is why the conservative talk shows have such a large market share (that's "ratings" in radio).

Liberals tried getting into the radio shtick: Air America. It failed miserably in almost all markets. Why? Gee...no corporations wanted to advertise on a radio "station" that bashed corporations. And they didn't get the market shares either - very small amount of listeners. If they had the listeners, the evil corporations would have put their ads where they could draw revenue...it is all about money, after all.
Perhaps liberals are more interested in loftier pursuits and use their commuting time to listen to audio books and good music?

Actually, this is probably a case of Corporate America dictating what people get to listen to. Limbaugh's show is syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications, Inc., of "boycott the Dixie Chicks and Springsteen's Magic" fame, the ninth biggest media owner in the country. It will come as no surprise that Sean Hannity also has a deal with Premiere Radio Networks, as well as Citadel Broadcasting Corp., owner of 77WABC, which hosts Mark Levine. Michael Savage's home radio station is KNEW , also owned by Clear Channel.
post #74 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
Ok, here's my question. If the school doesn't apply rules, where does it stop?? It doesn't matter if it makes sense, they are trying to instill the idea that they can't do anything they want. If they allow cell phones and ipods in the halls, why not let them bring in their laptops and play video games during class.

First of all, it's SCHOOL! There are some things that just not appropriate. Just like a job. Using cell phones (except for emergency) and listening to music is just not acceptible, IMO. They are there to do one thing, and that's learn. That is what school is about. Not keeping in contact with their friends, not listening to music, they are there to learn. It doesn't matter if it is a "sensible" rule, it is a school rule and it has to be followed. I never understood why I couldn't chew gum in class but I learned to follow it. As much as I didn't like it.

What would happen if someone was sitting with their eyes closed listening to their Ipod and a fire alarm went off? Would he hear it? Would he move? Or would he be trapped by the time he smelled the smoke? Something to think about.
I never said that the school should not apply rules, just that it shouldn't apply rules that are there just for the sake of having rules! There should be some freedom of thought is all i'm saying. The rules we have in the world are there to be sure, but I think children are just as capable of behaving in an appropriate way the way adults do in the real world, without being forced. It all depends on the parents of course, but I am assuming if parents do their job at teaching their kids properly. At a job, you are supposed to work, and at a school you learn only when there is class, not during lunch and in between classes...Fire alarms are incredibly loud for a reason.
post #75 of 85
Of course, this is a great way to encourage cooperation:

Obama says quit listening to Limbaugh

Let's put it on the other foot. Imagine Bush saying, "Quit listening to Jon Stewart if you want to get along with Republicans and get something done."
post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Perhaps liberals are more interested in loftier pursuits and use their commuting time to listen to audio books and good music?

Actually, this is probably a case of Corporate America dictating what people get to listen to. Limbaugh's show is syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications, Inc., of "boycott the Dixie Chicks and Springsteen's Magic" fame, the ninth biggest media owner in the country. It will come as no surprise that Sean Hannity also has a deal with Premiere Radio Networks, as well as Citadel Broadcasting Corp., owner of 77WABC, which hosts Mark Levine. Michael Savage's home radio station is KNEW , also owned by Clear Channel.
Acutally Rush is on-air during the workday, not drive time. And he's not as easy to find, not many Clear Channel stations are talk radio that I'm aware of. We listen to him at work after lunch, on an obscure low-range FM station.
post #77 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
I never said that the school should not apply rules, just that it shouldn't apply rules that are there just for the sake of having rules! There should be some freedom of thought is all i'm saying. The rules we have in the world are there to be sure, but I think children are just as capable of behaving in an appropriate way the way adults do in the real world, without being forced. It all depends on the parents of course, but I am assuming if parents do their job at teaching their kids properly. At a job, you are supposed to work, and at a school you learn only when there is class, not during lunch and in between classes...Fire alarms are incredibly loud for a reason.
I agree that students should have freedom of thought. But how does that apply to listening to their ipod or talking on their cell phone? What does that have to do with freedom of thought? Until something is added into the constitution about "freedom of using cell phones" I think it is up to each institution to define the limits of use.

And, a lot of parents AREN'T doing the job of setting limits for their kids. That is part of the problem right now. So, teaching rules is left up to the schools. They have to take a stand on something.
post #78 of 85
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Perhaps liberals are more interested in loftier pursuits and use their commuting time to listen to audio books and good music?

Actually, this is probably a case of Corporate America dictating what people get to listen to. Limbaugh's show is syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks, a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications, Inc., of "boycott the Dixie Chicks and Springsteen's Magic" fame, the ninth biggest media owner in the country. It will come as no surprise that Sean Hannity also has a deal with Premiere Radio Networks, as well as Citadel Broadcasting Corp., owner of 77WABC, which hosts Mark Levine. Michael Savage's home radio station is KNEW , also owned by Clear Channel.
LOL, I'm sure that is it, I'm sure that liberals are much more loftier than conservatives.
Sounds like sour grapes on the part of liberals because they can't make it on talk radio so they must try to find any excuse they can why liberal talk radio is such a dismal failure. Maybe the government could petition a multi-million dollar study as to why that is.

It's okay, it was sour grapes by the libs when Bush got elected, twice and sour grapes by the conservatives when Barack got elected. No worries
post #79 of 85
I guess decency and common since dont require as much constant reinforcement as self centered rhetoric
post #80 of 85
Anybody who has listened to Air America (and I have) knows that conservatives have no corner on the ridiculous, erroneous, inflammatory rhetoric. Also, I used to occasionally get the guy out in SF who turned out to be into child pornography. You know, the one who always referred to the past administration as "the Bush crime family."

I personally prefer NPR, but I've heard some pretty ridiculous stuff there, too. Dianne Rehm, for example, can get downright nasty with conservative guests, as can Terry Gross (for which she was reprimanded by the NPR ombudsman at one point).

For pure talk shows, nobody beats what Jim Bohannon used to do. I really missed him when he went to a "more normal" time.
post #81 of 85
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Of course, this is a great way to encourage cooperation:

Obama says quit listening to Limbaugh

Let's put it on the other foot. Imagine Bush saying, "Quit listening to Jon Stewart if you want to get along with Republicans and get something done."
mrblanche, here is Rush's reply. I am sure he will have more to say about it on Monday. LOL

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...NmZmM2MzYxMmI=
post #82 of 85
Thread Starter 
Rush is to unveil his new bi-partisan stimulus program called the
Obama-Limbaugh Stimlus Program. I haven't heard it/read it yet.

Rush says the meaning of bi-partisan, according to the Democratic politicians is: Republican caving in to the Democrats. That seems to be about right.
post #83 of 85
Let me try this again:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...106.guest.html

This link goes directly to Rush's website and has a transcript of what he recently said about Nancy Pelosi & birthcontrol.

Please note the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph.

Nice, hugh? That man is beyond disgusting IMO.

America's anchorman, indeed.
post #84 of 85
He's a private citizen who gets paid to talk. If you don't like him, don't listen.

And that's fairly tame for some of the things I've heard about Nancy Pelosi.
post #85 of 85
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PookieBoy View Post
Let me try this again:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...106.guest.html

This link goes directly to Rush's website and has a transcript of what he recently said about Nancy Pelosi & birthcontrol.

Please note the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph.

Nice, hugh? That man is beyond disgusting IMO.

America's anchorman, indeed.
PookieBoy, I may not agree with you but that smilie at the end of your post DID make my laugh out loud, no kidding. I love it. Thank you
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Rush on Sean