Clear Channel ready to lay off close to 1,000 people so Rush Limbaugh gets a raise

Started by inimalist7 pages

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Republican isn't a political ideology- it's a party affiliation. One can be a libertarian and a Republican, it is simply that the 'mainstream' and dominating ideals of the Republican party is one of conservatism, in all of its theocratic glory.

I never got why libertarians often vote Republican, though. After all, is the social aspect not important? How can libertarians vote for a party that is blatantly opposed to the concept of private/relative morality and thus advocates forced conformance? Libertarians disagree with liberals and conservatives equally, but they seem to have a tendency to support the conservatives for some reason.

Republican and Conservative in the American tradition always meant small government, non-invasive-ness into people's lives.

The fiscal side of the Reps, especially the "government is not the answer to your problems, government is the problem" is what swings the libertarians mostly, imho. And gun laws I think.

imho, libertarians don't really accept the culture war in the sense that you are presenting it in. They believe that Reps support personal liberty. Barry Goldwater:

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

American conservatism is REALLY interesting. Especially when you get into things like "conservative" anarchy.

and another good Goldwater:

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

People, the original purpose of this thread was a simple question. Is it worth bankrupting a conglomerate and firing 1,000 people so some fat, bigoted piece of shit can get paid $400,000,000 for sitting on his ass and spewing bile into a microphone for 3-4 hours a day, five days a week?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe they feel that the harm done to the economy by leftist ideals is bigger than the harm done to individuals by rightist's

Well, it's a possibility, I suppose. But I see the support libertarians have for Republicans as something of an acknowledgment that economic freedom is more important than social freedom- and I simply cannot buy that all, or even most, libertarians adhere to that norm.

There is also the fact that not all democrats are the radical socialists they are made out to be. Obama is more towards the 'far left' side, I admit, but Clinton? He was fairly moderate on economics.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ha, when was the last time the Republican Party pushed conservatism? Certainly not in the last 8 years.

George W. Bush is an authoritarian, theocratic conservative. Thankfully, he wasn't capable of implementing all of his policies, but I am still appalled by how libertarians can vote for a dude who is anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, and anti-free sex ed (McCain and most notably Palin).

Originally posted by inimalist

Republican and Conservative in the American tradition always meant small government, non-invasive-ness into people's lives.

The fiscal side of the Reps, especially the "government is not the answer to your problems, government is the problem" is what swings the libertarians mostly, imho. And gun laws I think.

imho, libertarians don't really accept the culture war in the sense that you are presenting it in. They believe that Reps support personal liberty.

Look. On the widely accepted political axis, conservatism is economically libertarian and socially authoritarian- which is to say that they actually support a government of a similar size in comparison to democrats. They simply believe it should be used in order to have tons of security and to intervene in 'moral' social issues: like the PATRIOT act, for example.

Conservatives nowadays fit into that ideal. Essentially, libertarians agree with mainstream Democrats on social issues and with mainstream Republicans on fiscal issues- they ultimately fend equal disagreement and agreement from both 'mainstream' sides.

Although I am willing to accept the possibility that the Republican party was once a libertarian one. These times are long gone, however, and in recent history, it always the Republicans who were the ones to oppose social change and constantly complain about 'societal decline'. If you're a libertarian, can you please explain to me how you can possibly give your vote to someone like John McCain?

Originally posted by Master Crimzon

George W. Bush is an authoritarian, theocratic conservative. Thankfully, he wasn't capable of implementing all of his policies, but I am still appalled by how libertarians can vote for a dude who is anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, and anti-free sex ed (McCain and most notably Palin).

I didn't see anything conservative during the Bushco era. Massive spending, massive debt, loss of privacy, tried to amend the constitution.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Well, it's a possibility, I suppose. But I see the support libertarians have for Republicans as something of an acknowledgment that economic freedom is more important than social freedom- and I simply cannot buy that all, or even most, libertarians adhere to that norm.

A lot of libertarians have convinced themselves that extreme economic conservatism will create similar social liberalism as a result.

Originally posted by inimalist
Republican and Conservative in the American tradition always meant small government, non-invasive-ness into people's lives.

Ironically that's been a blatantly untrue since the time I was capable of abstract thought. If conservatives were able to practice that I probably would be one.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
People, the original purpose of this thread was a simple question. Is it worth bankrupting a conglomerate and firing 1,000 people so some fat, bigoted piece of shit can get paid $400,000,000 for sitting on his ass and spewing bile into a microphone for 3-4 hours a day, five days a week?

The answer is "Quite possibly, yes."

Originally posted by Bardock42
The answer is "Quite possibly, yes."

I would have gone with "apparently".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I would have gone with "apparently".

Well, close enough.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
People, the original purpose of this thread was a simple question. Is it worth bankrupting a conglomerate and firing 1,000 people so some fat, bigoted piece of shit can get paid $400,000,000 for sitting on his ass and spewing bile into a microphone for 3-4 hours a day, five days a week?

If you happen to be one of those who don't think Rush spews filth (I think his drugged fat-ass is irrelevant, considering he's on radio), but pure brilliance from his mic, and there's many Americans who do, yes, it is worth it.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
People, the original purpose of this thread was a simple question. Is it worth bankrupting a conglomerate and firing 1,000 people so some fat, bigoted piece of shit can get paid $400,000,000 for sitting on his ass and spewing bile into a microphone for 3-4 hours a day, five days a week?

Your hate makes your question invalid.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your hate makes your question invalid.
That's, again, silly. His dislike should have no bearing on the validity of the question.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
People, the original purpose of this thread was a simple question. Is it worth bankrupting a conglomerate and firing 1,000 people so some fat, bigoted piece of shit can get paid $400,000,000 for sitting on his ass and spewing bile into a microphone for 3-4 hours a day, five days a week?

It's called capitalism, if the company feels that is what he is worth, they should pay it to him.

Feel free to move to the Soviet Union if you want everyone to be paid equally even though they don't deserve it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Feel free to move to the Soviet Union if you want everyone to be paid equally even though they don't deserve it.

I see what you did there.

Originally posted by KidRock
It's called capitalism, if the company feels that is what he is worth, they should pay it to him.

Feel free to move to the Soviet Union if you want everyone to be paid equally even though they don't deserve it.

Darth Jello cannot see past the hate he has for Rush Limbaugh. However, if we were talking about a sports hero that Darth Jello loved, I wonder how is opinion would change.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
How big would the mic have to be to cover limbaugh's ass? It would have to have a pop shield custom ordered from the guards at Buckingham Palace.

Q: What’s the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenberg?

A: One’s a flaming Nazi gas-bag and the other was a zeppelin.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Darth Jello cannot see past the hate he has for Rush Limbaugh. However, if we were talking about a sports hero that Darth Jello loved, I wonder how is opinion would change.

You're not being fair to his question, he's asking if Rush deserves such high pay when a 1,000 other people have to lose their job now to support his bankroll?

It's not just 'Rush is a fat, racist slob, he shouldn't get paid.'

Originally posted by Robtard
You're not being fair to his question, he's asking if Rush deserves such high pay when a 1,000 other people have to lose their job now to support his bankroll?

It's not just 'Rush is a fat, racist slob, he shouldn't get paid.'

It's not fair, but it happened because he's popular and a big name.

Just like at UofA; they cut 14 majors so they could pay their new head basketball coach with a $2 million salary.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's not fair, but it happened because he's popular and a big name.

Just like at UofA; they cut 14 majors so they could pay their new head basketball coach with a $2 million salary.

How is it not fair for a private company to pay an employee what they're worth?

Originally posted by KidRock
How is it not fair for a private company to pay an employee what they're worth?

It was "fair" as in legal, but it can be debated whether its was ethical or not.