+- Pink Floyd Online Forums (http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Band (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roger Waters (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: roger waters hobby - hypocrite? (/showthread.php?tid=775)
- Liquid Blue - 07-31-2007 10:01 PM
After reading an excerpt from conceptmusic.com i feel like i may have a different feeling towards the character that is roger waters. it reads as follows:
PINK FLOYD star ROGER WATERS is so disgusted by Britain's recent ban on hunting, he refuses to live here anymore and has taken up residence in America.
The veteran rocker now lives in New York's the Hamptons - famously known as a millionaires' playground - where he feels more at home than in the English countryside where traditional country pursuit fox hunting, is now outlawed.
He rages, "To slap down a perfectly gentle, fair-minded and honest yeoman-like minority in that way was just disgusting. It is also bloody stupid."
now to know that roger waters live only 28 miles from my very home is startling and exciting news to me, but knowing that man who preaches of such grace, equalities, the value of lives among other things could be a destroyer of innocent life is humorous and rediculous. Seeing with his preachy run on "leaving beruit" im in shock. one can speak of innocence and who are we to destroy the innocent and weak etc. animals touch breathe blink sleep and and live just as we do so what gives you the right to take there lives. practice what you preach and become a veggie or start writing songs about animal genocide. ???
- Rogerwaterhasgonemad - 07-31-2007 11:24 PM
fox hunting was a english tradition
eric clapton and other are aggaint the ban they did a concert for it
- Wings on the Pig - 08-01-2007 01:31 AM
Liquid Blue Wrote:After reading an excerpt from conceptmusic.com i feel like i may have a different feeling towards the character that is roger waters. it reads as follows:I do agree with you on that one. It is very hypocritical to write albums about the deaths of innocent things and then to move away from a country because of a ban on killing animals.
PINK FLOYD star ROGER WATERS is so disgusted by Britain's recent ban on hunting, he refuses to live here anymore and has taken up residence in America.
The veteran rocker now lives in New York's the Hamptons - famously known as a millionaires' playground - where he feels more at home than in the English countryside where traditional country pursuit fox hunting, is now outlawed.
He rages, "To slap down a perfectly gentle, fair-minded and honest yeoman-like minority in that way was just disgusting. It is also bloody stupid."
now to know that roger waters live only 28 miles from my very home is startling and exciting news to me, but knowing that man who preaches of such grace, equalities, the value of lives among other things could be a destroyer of innocent life is humorous and rediculous. Seeing with his preachy run on "leaving beruit" im in shock. one can speak of innocence and who are we to destroy the innocent and weak etc. animals touch breathe blink sleep and and live just as we do so what gives you the right to take there lives. practice what you preach and become a veggie or start writing songs about animal genocide. ???
- Pros and Cons - 08-01-2007 12:02 PM
As an animal lover, I find this disturbing as well. I knew Roger was a hunter, but I didn't realize he was so adamant about it that he would move from England to be able to pursue his "hobby". I honestly think I'm going to write him a letter about this. He needs to find a better hobby. Perhaps I'll suggest stamp-collecting.
Edited By Pros and Cons on 1185998628
- pisania - 08-01-2007 01:35 PM
Who knew Roger Waters and Ted Nugent had so much in common! LOL
- Pros and Cons - 08-01-2007 03:59 PM
pisania Wrote:Who knew Roger Waters and Ted Nugent had so much in common! LOLOooh... that just makes me shudder. And not in a good way! :laugh:
- Philintheflesh - 08-01-2007 04:39 PM
pinkfloydmadchris Wrote:Steady on.Liquid Blue Wrote:After reading an excerpt from conceptmusic.com i feel like i may have a different feeling towards the character that is roger waters. it reads as follows:I do agree with you on that one. It is very hypocritical to write albums about the deaths of innocent things and then to move away from a country because of a ban on killing animals.
PINK FLOYD star ROGER WATERS is so disgusted by Britain's recent ban on hunting, he refuses to live here anymore and has taken up residence in America.
The veteran rocker now lives in New York's the Hamptons - famously known as a millionaires' playground - where he feels more at home than in the English countryside where traditional country pursuit fox hunting, is now outlawed.
He rages, "To slap down a perfectly gentle, fair-minded and honest yeoman-like minority in that way was just disgusting. It is also bloody stupid."
now to know that roger waters live only 28 miles from my very home is startling and exciting news to me, but knowing that man who preaches of such grace, equalities, the value of lives among other things could be a destroyer of innocent life is humorous and rediculous. Seeing with his preachy run on "leaving beruit" im in shock. one can speak of innocence and who are we to destroy the innocent and weak etc. animals touch breathe blink sleep and and live just as we do so what gives you the right to take there lives. practice what you preach and become a veggie or start writing songs about animal genocide. ???
I`m very disappointed by Roger`s stance on hunting also. But saying he`s a "hypocrite" because he supports it, is a bit much.
If he was a member of the RSPCA, perhaps he would be. But suggesting he`s guilty of "double standards", because of his anti-war stance is silly. Fox-hunting is one thing....and countless thousands dying in senseless, often politically-driven conflicts is quite another. I hope you`ll agree, the latter is the much graver of the two.
By that, you shouldn`t infer that I don`t care for animal rights. In fact, very much to the contrary...I don`t think we should even kill them for food...that`s why I`ve been a vegetarian for the last 16 years (for moral reasons, not health).
For those who can`t say the same, I`ll suggest the moral indignation is misguided...also that the "hypocrisy" lies, not with Waters, but very much closer to home.
Edited By Philintheflesh on 1186016683
- pisania - 08-02-2007 06:11 AM
Pros and Cons Wrote:Who knows, maybe they will play together sometime. Maybe at some NRA function. Can you picture Roger playing bass on "Cat Scratch Fever" and Ted playing guitar on "Comfortably Numb!?"pisania Wrote:Who knew Roger Waters and Ted Nugent had so much in common! LOLOooh... that just makes me shudder. And not in a good way! :laugh:
Of course I am still kidding about this....
- Comfortably9Numb - 08-02-2007 09:18 AM
im sure that wasn't the ONLY reason he left Britian, there must have been some other reasons other than that he just didn't want them noted because he talks about them in his songs (Tony Blair was in office when he left i believe)
- Pros and Cons - 08-02-2007 09:33 AM
Philintheflesh Wrote:I'm veg too, and for the same reasons you are. :)pinkfloydmadchris Wrote:Steady on.Liquid Blue Wrote:After reading an excerpt from conceptmusic.com i feel like i may have a different feeling towards the character that is roger waters. it reads as follows:I do agree with you on that one. It is very hypocritical to write albums about the deaths of innocent things and then to move away from a country because of a ban on killing animals.
PINK FLOYD star ROGER WATERS is so disgusted by Britain's recent ban on hunting, he refuses to live here anymore and has taken up residence in America.
The veteran rocker now lives in New York's the Hamptons - famously known as a millionaires' playground - where he feels more at home than in the English countryside where traditional country pursuit fox hunting, is now outlawed.
He rages, "To slap down a perfectly gentle, fair-minded and honest yeoman-like minority in that way was just disgusting. It is also bloody stupid."
now to know that roger waters live only 28 miles from my very home is startling and exciting news to me, but knowing that man who preaches of such grace, equalities, the value of lives among other things could be a destroyer of innocent life is humorous and rediculous. Seeing with his preachy run on "leaving beruit" im in shock. one can speak of innocence and who are we to destroy the innocent and weak etc. animals touch breathe blink sleep and and live just as we do so what gives you the right to take there lives. practice what you preach and become a veggie or start writing songs about animal genocide. ???
I`m very disappointed by Roger`s stance on hunting also. But saying he`s a "hypocrite" because he supports it, is a bit much.
If he was a member of the RSPCA, perhaps he would be. But suggesting he`s guilty of "double standards", because of his anti-war stance is silly. Fox-hunting is one thing....and countless thousands dying in senseless, often politically-driven conflicts is quite another. I hope you`ll agree, the latter is the much graver of the two.
By that, you shouldn`t infer that I don`t care for animal rights. In fact, very much to the contrary...I don`t think we should even kill them for food...that`s why I`ve been a vegetarian for the last 16 years (for moral reasons, not health).
For those who can`t say the same, I`ll suggest the moral indignation is misguided...also that the "hypocrisy" lies, not with Waters, but very much closer to home.
- Sharky - 08-02-2007 01:08 PM
I see nothing hypocritical about this at all. Killing innocent people and hunting are two very different things. There is nothing wrong with hunting. I am a meat-eating hunter and I'm glad Roger hunts too. We need more hunters in this world.
Edited By Sharky on 1186089084
- Pros and Cons - 08-02-2007 02:49 PM
Sharky Wrote:I see nothing hypocritical about this at all. Killing innocent people and hunting are two very different things. There is nothing wrong with hunting. I am a meat-eating hunter and I'm glad Roger hunts too. We need more hunters in this world.
:laugh: I can't think of anything we need LESS! :D
- Dyolf - 08-02-2007 04:30 PM
Roger lived in the US way before the ban.
And I support the ban, there is no good reason for hunting, I am also a supporter of banning smoking.
- scalzmoney - 08-02-2007 05:30 PM
Old news. Roger's lived here in the U.S. for years.
I think a lot of it was to do with the insane taxes on high incomes in Great Britain. This is the reason they recorded 'The Wall' all over the place, as they would have been taxed on the percentage of the work created there, I believe.
Plus, if anyone's earned a ticket to a 'millionare's playground' wouldn't that include people like Roger and Dave who've worked hard for 40 years to get where they are?
- Dyolf - 08-02-2007 06:06 PM
scalzmoney Wrote:Old news. Roger's lived here in the U.S. for years.Pink Floyd had no leave the UK in '77 because they were conned out of thousands of pounds. They went abroad to avoid British tax on royalties so they could recoup their money. But they had to become "permanent residents" of whichever country they chose to avoid UK tax, Roger went to Florida, Dave & Rick went to France and I can't remember where Nick went.
I think a lot of it was to do with the insane taxes on high incomes in Great Britain. This is the reason they recorded 'The Wall' all over the place, as they would have been taxed on the percentage of the work created there, I believe.
Plus, if anyone's earned a ticket to a 'millionare's playground' wouldn't that include people like Roger and Dave who've worked hard for 40 years to get where they are?
That's why Dave recorded his first solo album there, and Dave suggested Super Bear Studios for The Wall sessions, even though the drums were done in Britannia Row (The Recording Studios PF bought in 1975/6).
Dave chose France becuase it was close to the UK and he speaks French.
- Sharky - 08-02-2007 07:29 PM
Hunting is a way of life where I live and if it someday becomes illegal in the US, it would be a shame. Banning hunting is not progress, it is bending to liberal PC BS.
Hunting is older than man. Innocent animals hunt every day to survive. Hunting puts food on the table and feeds the hungry and less fortunate. Hunting helps control the game populations.
If you're against hunting, are you against fishing? Its the same thing. Are you against farming? Farming is killing an innocent living thing in order to eat it. Are you against eating?!
Edited By Sharky on 1186111830
- Kulvin - 08-02-2007 08:25 PM
Sharky Wrote:Hunting is a way of life where I live and if it someday becomes illegal in the US, it would be a shame. Banning hunting is not progress, it is bending to liberal PC BS.Animals killing animals to survive is completely different than humans who hunt for fun, with a gun, when the animals don't even have time to run. Sorry but I had to... :( Plants are different than animals in the sense that they can not think or feel pain etc. No human is against eating. That was kind of silly. I am in no way against hunting, but that argument was a little too weak for me to pass by. Wouldn't want to let the people against hunting win so easily :unclesam:
Hunting is older than man. Innocent animals hunt every day to survive. Hunting puts food on the table and feeds the hungry and less fortunate. Hunting helps control the game populations.
If you're against hunting, are you against fishing? Its the same thing. Are you against farming? Farming is killing an innocent living thing in order to eat it. Are you against eating?!
- Sharky - 08-03-2007 05:43 AM
Animals killing animals to survive is completely different than humans who hunt for fun, with a gun, when the animals don't even have time to run. Sorry but I had to... :( Plants are different than animals in the sense that they can not think or feel pain etc. No human is against eating. That was kind of silly. I am in no way against hunting, but that argument was a little too weak for me to pass by. Wouldn't want to let the people against hunting win so easily :unclesam:
I wasn't talking about plants. I was talking about beef/poultry farmers and ranchers. What is different about them than hunters? In farming/ranching, the animals are raised to be killed and have no chance for survival. In hunting, all of the animals have a much better chance to survive. The hunting laws and regulations combined with acute senses of the animals provide the animals a fair chance to survive.
If you are not against hunting and have some better arguments, the floor is yours.
- Dyolf - 08-03-2007 06:00 AM
Sharky Wrote:Hunting is a way of life where I live and if it someday becomes illegal in the US, it would be a shame. Banning hunting is not progress, it is bending to liberal PC BS.Th British hunting ban banned hunting foxes as a blood sport, not fishing or hunting for food - it's still perfectly legal to go and shoot rabbits etc for food - as long as you have a licensed weapon.
Hunting is older than man. Innocent animals hunt every day to survive. Hunting puts food on the table and feeds the hungry and less fortunate. Hunting helps control the game populations.
If you're against hunting, are you against fishing? Its the same thing. Are you against farming? Farming is killing an innocent living thing in order to eat it. Are you against eating?!
Blood sports are wrong - and that's that, there's no good reason for it, and if twatty toffs don't like it, tough.
- Sharky - 08-03-2007 06:58 AM
I hunt for food and sport and there is nothing wrong with that, Mr. twatty toff (whatever that means).
- Dyolf - 08-03-2007 03:39 PM
There's nothing wrong with scaring the **** out of a defensless fox, chasing it with a pack of 30 larger dogs than it is followed by a bunch of upper class tits on horses wielding guns?
Yeah, how about I round you up with some pitbull's and let them rip you to bits?
- lilly4884 - 08-05-2007 09:20 PM
I saw Roger speak about this in an interview, he said that he was against the ban because he felt like it was the government trying to unfairly stamp out the fun of the 'country folk' because they didn't understand their way of life. He said it wasn't a total ban, you can have your dogs chase after it, but once you catch it you have to shoot it & not let the dogs eat it (I think-I'd have to watch it again to be certain). But he also said that he didn't leave because of the ban & that it was just made up because he'd been spending much more of his time in the US.
Personally i'm not a fan of hunting at all...but nobodys perfect I guess :laugh:
- mabewa - 08-06-2007 08:00 AM
I'm a bit confused here. Roger Waters has made it clear that he's against the ban on fox-hunting. However, that doesn't mean it's HIS hobby. Nowhere have I read that Roger himself practices fox-hunting.
- Dyolf - 08-06-2007 09:05 AM
mabewa Wrote:I'm a bit confused here. Roger Waters has made it clear that he's against the ban on fox-hunting. However, that doesn't mean it's HIS hobby. Nowhere have I read that Roger himself practices fox-hunting.Agreeing with it is bad enough, supporters of Hitler were evil buggers, even though they didn't kill anyone.... the same principle applies.
You don't have to practice it to agree with it.
- RADAR_Brian - 08-06-2007 07:40 PM
I can't believe I'm replying to this thread, but here goes:
I figure that most of you against hunting do not actually live out in the country. When people build cities and other modern wonders, they slowly drive animals into smaller areas to live in.. most hunting is allowed not just for food, or sport, but for basic animal population control.
When I was growing up I can remember seeing 30 rabbits in my front yard at one time. When animals don't have full reign of the land they have population issues. If you just let it go, there would be mass sickness and potential drop in population of some species.
Having said that, I personally don't really enjoy hunting.
- Dyolf - 08-07-2007 03:52 AM
What gives us the right to decide when animals "overpopulated"?
And what don't you understand about "Blood Sport", foxes are rarer than they've ever been in the UK down to hunting - so the theroy of them being over populated is null and void.
- RADAR_Brian - 08-09-2007 03:25 PM
My comments were not directly related to the foxes in England. I was speaking more to hunting in general.
What gives us the right? What gives us the right to do anything? You live in a house I assume? You have already pushed nature aside and out of it's rights. I would presume you live in a city of some type.. then it's even more... when cities continue to sprawl they continue to force animal populations into smaller niches.. unless you want some species to go extinct you have to control populations.
On another note, you don't have to be so smug in your reply to me. I'm not even a hunter. I'm just trying to have a healthy conversation.
- Dyolf - 08-09-2007 05:14 PM
I don't live in a city, as Prestatyn has no cathedral...
Anyway, as we all (well, nearly all) live in some sort of house, flat, apartment etc we've all contributed to the decline in the eco-system, which makes hunting as a blood sport even worse IMO.
Call me mad, but does this look acceptable to you?
Fox Hunting Is Not A Sport
Edited By Dyolf on 1186708772
- Narrow Way - 08-09-2007 07:28 PM
Where I live, grocery stores are full. More crap to eat than you can imagine. It takes a few minutes and a few dollars and I can have a real quick meal. This hunting routine takes so long, and there's so much preparation to it. I just can't understand it. Sport?? I think not.
Catch the goddamn rabbit with your hands, run him down and kick his ass. That may be a bit sporting.
Let's just be honest here. Humans are born killers. Dr. Zayus said it, and it holds true.
All of that aside, I couldn't give a rat's a*s about hunting. Go for it man. Knock yourself out.
On your property. Not public land.
I shouldn't have to fear your bullet in a public park or forest.
Also, in my eyes, animals have no rights. Except possibly the right to get the h*ll outta the way when humans come near them. Kill'em, eat'em, control the population,whatever.
I do find it kinda goofy, the guy who's whole identity is wrapped up in hunting.
And let's put this enabling, non accurate term of "sportsman" to rest. That's like saying a child molester is just horny. :D
- Grguitarfreek100 - 08-09-2007 08:27 PM
is it that horrible that he hunts, hes just a musician, hes not a philosophical god
- Dyolf - 08-10-2007 03:11 AM
Grguitarfreek100 Wrote:is it that horrible that he huntsYes, if it's for s pointless sport. Hunting rabbits etc for food isn't cruel because the rabbit is shot and dies instantly, it isn't attacked and ripped to pieces by large dogs, just imagine the pain the fox goes through for the "fun" of these hunters.
A few weeks ago, a man was arrested for taking a scissors to a dog's ears, he's now in prison for animal cruelty, is this any different to fox hunting?
- RADAR_Brian - 08-10-2007 01:16 PM
Dyolf,
I actually agree with you on the pointless sport part and especially the shot and dies instantly....
I'm with you.
- Dyolf - 08-10-2007 03:40 PM
RADAR_Brian Wrote:Dyolf,Sorry about the arguing thing, but I feel very strongly about fox hunting, and I get worked up over it.
I actually agree with you on the pointless sport part and especially the shot and dies instantly....
I'm with you.
- roger david - 08-11-2007 03:40 AM
I am not a hunter and never have been, I agree with the ban on fox hunting. I also agree that this is hypicrtical but I find that that is the way it is with the far left extremists their all for the cause as long as you agree with them if not they get all worked up and give it the dreaded "protest". I really wish the cele types would just stick to performing on stage. Let the performance speak for you IE..songs etc.
Oh well just my opinion.
Have a good one
KC
Edited By roger david on 1186832473
- mabewa - 08-11-2007 09:54 PM
Quote:Banning hunting is not progress, it is bending to liberal PC BS.
Oh, puh-LEASE! Dude, I don't know if you've been living under a rock for the past several years or what, but that "liberal" dog don't bite no more. Also, in the age of "freedom fries," it's kind of amusing to blame PC on "liberals" anymore.
Plus, who exactly is talking about banning all hunting here? As pointed out by other posters here, there is a BIG difference between banning normal hunting and banning blood sports.
I'm a liberal who grew up hunting myself, and here's my middle-of-the-road perspective: when I was growing up, my parents had a rule: you kill it, you eat it. We lived on a little, rural island where the predators had been eliminated in the 1800's, and if the deer were not hunted, they would get sickly and starve. My family was not rich, and to me, hunting made sense: it put food on the table, and it was ultimately kinder to the deer. Sure, it would be better in a way if the island had been allowed to remain in a pristine state, predators and all, but who's to say that a bullet to the head is a worse way to die than been caught and torn to bits by a predator???
I think that there is a good argument for not eating meat at all, so I'll listen to vegetarians, but it does crack me up when people who eat meat from the supermarket get down on people who hunt for their food. When you look at conditions in slaughterhouses in the US, hunting is FAR more humane. A bullet is far kinder than being clubbed to death, and that's to say nothing of the cruelty of raising animals in cages the size of their own bodies. Hunting for food is way LESS cruel than eating normal supermarket meat.
On the other hand, blood-sports like fox-hunting are cruel, inhumane, and cowardly. Bear-baiting, for example--where is the sport in that? You won't hear me wasting any energy defending blood-sports.
- chromeboomerang - 08-12-2007 12:59 AM
A bullet is far kinder than being clubbed to death, and that's to say nothing of the cruelty of raising animals in cages the size of their own bodies. Hunting for food is way LESS cruel than eating normal supermarket meat.
Interesting, A liberal who agrees with Ted Nugent.
& the Liberal dog DOES bite. Has ruined the boyscouts in Canada, & working hard on it here in USA.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive....ing.htm
Along these lines, a new book has come out which contains a study that shows that Conservatives give 30% more on average to charities, ( non religious ones). Even poor Conservative families the percentage remains constant.
Heard the cat on the radio, he said; If it weren't for church going Conservatives, there would be no PTA, no Boy Scouts etc. A sad vision it paints if the larger percentage of American society were Liberal.
http://digg.com/politics/Conservativ...als_as_a_whole
The title of compassionate conservative may fall into disuse after this fallout of this book.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1186915784
- Dyolf - 08-12-2007 01:27 AM
I agree with the hunting for food points, after all, we're animals ourselves. Hunting deer, rabbits etc is ok for food when people kill what they need to eat, and it's probably healthier than what you get at supermarkets.
I can see no good reason for blood-sports, it's cruel, inhumane and should be totally banned, at least in the UK.
- chromeboomerang - 08-12-2007 03:06 AM
Well, but shooting parking ticket personell should be legal you have to admit.
- cevor - 08-12-2007 03:11 AM
chromeboomerang Wrote:Well, but shooting parking ticket personell should be legal you have to admit.:laugh: welcome back cb....
- cevor - 08-12-2007 03:15 AM
I'm not that impressed with hunters, although their functional aspect is good for the herd generally...fox hunting and such is just another violent form of entertainment...I don't see the sport in it at all, much like dog or cock-fighting...if we get more Romanesque we'll all need togas eh? that's frighteneing in itself! :Oo:
- chromeboomerang - 08-12-2007 03:46 AM
I was in Ohio few yrs back & I saw a stat posted after hunting season. 70 tons of meat was donated to the homeless from the hunters during the season. & 90% of the money used to maintain wildlife comes from hunters.
- mabewa - 08-12-2007 09:06 AM
Quote:Interesting, A liberal who agrees with Ted Nugent.
Well, I don't agree with a lot of Nugent's views ("speak English or get out of the USA"--tell that to a Navajo or Yupik elder, or to the majority of hardworking, honest people in Puerto Rico!). But, Nugent eats what he shoots, and I have no problem with that at all.
The problem with (some) conservatives is that they spend so much time demonizing "liberals" (reading all those trash books written by Ann Coulter and ilk that try to paint us as "traitors" that should be rounded up) that most of the time they have no idea whatsover of how we actually think (hint: we don't all think the same). It's not that people like me are uncommon, it's just that (some) conservatives have swallowed a line of utter BS about their fellow Americans--brainwashed up the yin-yang. Do you REALLY think I'm unusual? If so, you're either really isolated, or someone's been taking you for a major ride, because there's a lot more where I come from. Go to places like the Puget Sound area or Vermont or Northern California or Hispanic parts of Northern New Mexico, just to give you a few examples, and you'll meet a lot of proud, working-class American left-wing rural people, and most of us have no problem with hunting, as long as it's done for food and not for rich people's idiot and cowardly sport.
Where I come from, it's all of the yuppie Republicans from Bellevue with their big weekend houses who have a problem with hunting--they think the deer look nice walking around in their big yards. Hey, we think the deer look nice too, just not when they're starving. Plus, they taste good, and if we're going to eat meat at all, it's a heck of a lot more humane and healthy than McDonalds.
Edited By mabewa on 1186938461
- mabewa - 08-12-2007 09:23 AM
Quote:Along these lines, a new book has come out which contains a study that shows that Conservatives give 30% more on average to charities, ( non religious ones). Even poor Conservative families the percentage remains constant.
Heard the cat on the radio, he said; If it weren't for church going Conservatives, there would be no PTA, no Boy Scouts etc. A sad vision it paints if the larger percentage of American society were Liberal.
Yeah, they say stuff like that on the radio, don't they? The whole attitude there seems to be "if the facts don't fit, just make s##t up." You'll hear a lot of pretty funny stuff on the radio.
Put it this way: it's a well-known fact that the poor and middle class actually donate a greater percentage of their income than the rich do. Everybody oohs and ahhs about how much Bill Gates donates to charity, but the ironic thing is, the average working stiff donates more, percentage-wise.
Now, it's also a well-known fact that people who vote Democrat (who you'd probably classify as "liberal") are, on average, significantly lower-income than those who vote Republican (who you'd probably classify as "conservative"). That would appear to contradict this new book you're writing about (this new book wouldn't happen to be written by someone like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and ilk, now would it?)
In the words of Chuck D: don't believe the hype!
- Sharky - 08-13-2007 08:22 AM
Bleeding heart Liberal organizations (like PETA, Humane Society of the US) main long term goals are to eliminate ALL hunting. I'm not saying that all liberals want this, but the two groups I mention ARE far left groups and they are the most dangerous to the hunting way of life that many cherish. They do not advertise these views to the general public because they will alienate some of their members AND much of the public who won't agree with them. BUT, if you dig just a little, it is very clear what their goals are. They just are taking it one small step at a time.
Edited By Sharky on 1187022612
- Narrow Way - 08-13-2007 11:59 AM
^ rightwing fascist propoganda.
OOHHHH. The "liberals" want my guns.
Tired argument full of holes.
- Sharky - 08-13-2007 12:02 PM
Tell me, what is so full of holes about that?
Its not even an argumant, its a fact.
- Narrow Way - 08-13-2007 04:12 PM
Look man, I'm not gonna argue with "fact". If that's your slant, so be it. I submit you should dig deeper and get out of the NRA spin cycle.
No argument here.
I just think hunters who aren't hungry are killers. Not sportsmen. Pre-meditated killers.
- Sharky - 08-13-2007 05:24 PM
Can you tell me which one of the facts I mention are slanted?
I didn't think so. Go back in your hole.
- Narrow Way - 08-13-2007 05:48 PM
"Bleeding heart Liberal organizations (like PETA, Humane Society of the US)"
Obviously slanted.
"main long term goals are to eliminate ALL hunting."
Bull. Lets see some documentation to prove it. Not Limbaugh law, documentation.
"They do not advertise these views to the general public because they will alienate some of their members AND much of the public who won't agree with them."
fact? Paranoid delusion maybe.
"BUT, if you dig just a little, it is very clear what their goals are. "
Propoganda. facts please.
" Go back in your hole."
Typical conservative. Gets combative when a shaky foundation is rattled.
:) Have a nice day.
- mabewa - 08-13-2007 05:48 PM
Quote:Bleeding heart Liberal organizations (like PETA, Humane Society of the US) main long term goals are to eliminate ALL hunting. I'm not saying that all liberals want this, but the two groups I mention ARE far left groups and they are the most dangerous to the hunting way of life that many cherish.
Dude, this is another example of how too much talk-show radio warps your brain and gets you confused. PETA is indeed a radical organization, but it's not a "radical-left" organization, let alone "liberal." In some societies and some periods of history, it's actually been the radical RIGHT that has embraced animal-rights. "Radical-left" generally means "leftist" (communist) and communism views animals as resources to be used by humans, which is totally the opposite of animal-rights. PETA's agenda simply doesn't fit on the left-right spectrum at all (not everything does, you know).
The vast majority of "liberals" don't support groups like PETA--in fact, many liberals are environmentalists, and environmentalism and animal-rights generally mix like oil and water: environmentalism requires that animal populations be sharply controlled to protect the environment (for example, rabbits in Australia, pigs on Pacific islands), while animal-rights people totally oppose such measures.
Anyway, even if you can argue that PETA is somehow left-wing, then that doesn't mean you can blame it on liberals. I mean, the Aryan Nations IS (radical) right-wing, but I don't hold you responsible for it.
The whole problem with the right-wing hysteric media in the US is that it doesn't make the basic kind of distinctions that I'm making above: "everybody we don't agree with is a "liberal," so "liberals" are to blame for everything bad."
No wonder y'all are so confused.
- Sharky - 08-13-2007 06:10 PM
OK. You asked for facts, I'll give you facts. I'm not very good at cutting and pasting quotes, documenting positions, etc. so bear with me.
- mabewa - 08-13-2007 06:22 PM
May I also add: lumping Peta together with the Humane Society of America is QUITE a stretch. Animal-rights and animal-welfare are two totally different animals (no pun intended) entirely. Animal-rights organizations often denounce animal-welfare organizations, because the latter put animals to sleep when they can't find good homes for them. Apples and oranges.
Also, did it ever occur to you that "liberal" and "left-wing" are not the same thing? I mean, in a dictionary sense, a "radical liberal" is a libertarian, and libertarians are very strong supports of gun-rights.
Once again, you're a victim of a simplistic philosophy that lumps all people you disagree with under the heading of "evil liberals." That really hinders understanding of the complexity of the world.
Finally, if you are confused between things like leftist, left-wing, liberal, environmentalist, animal-rights and animal-welfare, you can't really cut and paste yourself out of the dilemma. The best solution is doing a lot of reading from a lot of different sources.
Edited By mabewa on 1187058573
- Sharky - 08-13-2007 06:38 PM
- Sharky - 08-13-2007 06:47 PM
[quote]May I also add: lumping Peta together with the Humane Society of America is QUITE a stretch. Animal-rights and animal-welfare are two totally different animals (no pun intended) entirely. Animal-rights organizations often denounce animal-welfare organizations, because the latter put animals to sleep when they can't find good homes for them. Apples and oranges.
This is from the Humane Society of the US's website...
"Campaigns & Programs
The foremost campaigns and programs of The Humane Society of the United States include:
Animal Cruelty & Fighting
Factory Farming
Fur
Hunting
Puppy Mills
Chimps in Research
Seal Hunt
Horse Slaughter
Pets for Life
Wild Neighbors"
Now, this is from PETA's website...
"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 1.6 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.
PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs.
PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns"
WHile they may disagree on some minor points, these two groups main goals are very much in line with each other.
IYou're abvoiusly splitting hairs here since you have little knowledge here.
- Narrow Way - 08-13-2007 06:57 PM
Ok. Lets split hair, as you put it.
Here's what your website provided. Where do you disagree?
The HSUS Hunting Campaign works to end the most egregious forms of hunting that exist today. Our highest priority projects put these examples of truly unsporting behavior in the crosshairs.
Polar Bear Trophies
Polar bears are on thin ice. As climate change heats up the Arctic, these iconic bears are not only scrambling to stay afloat, they're struggling to dodge the bullets of trophy hunters wishing to lug the pelts of these magnificent animals back to the United States to fill their trophy rooms.
Internet Hunting
Internet hunting, also called remote-controlled hunting, uses internet technology to allow a computer user to aim and fire a weapon, mounted on a mechanized tripod, to kill captive wildlife from hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
Canned Hunting
A signature campaign and a top priority for The HSUS, StopCannedHunts.org focuses on banning canned hunts, where captive, often tame, hand-reared animals are shot within fenced enclosures at close range. They are often exotic animals like addax, blackbuck and oryx, sometimes obtained from roadside circuses and zoos. Twenty states have banned canned hunts.
Contest Kills
Contest kills are an activity where animals, usually coyotes or prairie dogs, are shot by contestants for prizes or money. The shooter who can shoot the most or heaviest animals is declared the winner. The Hunting Campaign seeks to stop contest kills wherever they occur.
Live Pigeon Shoots
Pigeon shoots are a type of contest kill in which participants kill thousands of animals for prizes and cash. The birds are shot from 30 yards away, with most birds wounded and suffering for an unknown stretch of time rather than killed outright. Pigeon shoots are illegal in nearly every state, and the Hunting Campaign is working to ban the few live pigeon shoots remaining.
Targeting Children
The number of hunters in this country is declining and so is hunting, leaving promoters scrambling for ways to keep this $20-billion-a-year industry profitable. Their solution is recruiting children by lowering or eliminating minimum hunting ages and exempting children from hunter safety courses. The HSUS opposes such actions because they place children in unnecessary danger and teach them that animals are nothing more than live targets.
Bear Baiting
Many hunters attract bears to an area by luring them with piles of jelly donuts and rotting meat. While the bear feeds, the hunter sits in a nearby tree stand or blind and shoots the unsuspecting animal. Of the 28 states that allow bear hunting, 18 prohibit the baiting of bears.
Hound Hunting
Many hunters chase bears, bobcats and mountain lions until they can be treed or cornered using packs of dogs. The dogs' collars are fitted with radio transmitters so all the hunter must do is follow the signal, then shoot the trapped animal down from the tree at point-blank range. Training exercises often involve hunters allowing their dogs to rip apart baby animals so that the dogs develop a taste for blood.
Field Coursing
Dogs are used to chase rabbits, foxes and other animals in competitions. When the dogs catch their quarry they often fight over the terrified animal, sometimes literally tearing him apart. Even if the animal is not caught, he may later die due to the fear and stress associated with the chase.
The World Hunting Association
In one of the most absurd and cruel "reality" shows ever created, The World Hunting Association has mixed the unfair chase and drive-thru killing of a canned hunt with the tournament-style competition and commercialization of a contest kill.
Sunday Hunting
A number of states prohibit or restrict hunting on Sundays. Because hunters have six days a week to themselves in the woods, this break from hunting allows other outdoor enthusiasts, as well as animals, a day of safety and quiet. We encourage states to maintain these restrictions.
I don't count your copy and paste as knowledge. Maybe you should try reading this stuff before you copy and paste it.
- Sharky - 08-13-2007 06:58 PM
Any other questions...?
The HSUS and PETA are against all forms of hunting and PETA is even against fishing. Go to their websites and do a little brushing up on the topic.
http://www.peta.org
http://www.hsus.org
You might learn something new today.
If you decide to educate yourself on this matter, feel free to thank me.
Your welcome. :p
- Narrow Way - 08-13-2007 07:05 PM
Now, this is from PETA's website...
"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 1.6 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.
PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other "pests," and the abuse of backyard dogs.
PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns"
WHile they may disagree on some minor points, these two groups main goals are very much in line with each other.
IYou're abvoiusly splitting hairs here since you have little knowledge here.
Back to top
With my limited knowledge of the subject, where does it say they are going after hunters and their way of life? I just don't see that.
The only thing you have right is that their goals are in line with each other. But neither's goals are to outlaw your right to kill animals.
:) Have a good evening.
- Sharky - 08-13-2007 07:13 PM
- Sharky - 08-13-2007 07:16 PM
And another thing, I dont hate liberals. My mother is a liberal who has lived in Berkely for 15 years and I love her very much. We even agree on some things.
- Narrow Way - 08-13-2007 07:31 PM
All I can say is wow.Woweewow. :D
You can evidently see whatever fits your agenda in what you read.
Nobody cares if you like "liberals". Nobody cares if I like "conservatives". But the tone of your posts is so typical of the snide, indignant attitude of neo cons.
And just how did you overestimate my intelligence? Did you make a snap judgement after reading one post? Kudos.
Man you're just grasping at straws trying to preserve your dogma. Good luck!! :O
- chromeboomerang - 08-13-2007 10:04 PM
Dude, this is another example of how too much talk-show radio warps your brain and gets you confused. PETA is indeed a radical organization, but it's not a "radical-left" organization, let alone "liberal." In some societies and some periods of history, it's actually been the radical RIGHT that has embraced animal-rights.
Perhaps in some societies of old Mabewa, but in the here & now, PETA is very left. Perhaps not all left/liberal people share their views as you mention, but they are nonetheless a VERY LEFT group. Left extremist perhaps a more accurate title.
Hunters haters have frequently threatened Nugen't family. Death threats that is.
Well, I don't agree with a lot of Nugent's views ("speak English or get out of the USA"--tell that to a Navajo or Yupik elder, or to the majority of hardworking, honest people in Puerto Rico!).
I do. He said; If you can't dial 911 & save another persons life, you don't belong here. Native americans argument is clever, but one could say the same thing for the Japanese, ( that they should speak the old Anus man language, they were 1st on the island), or that these ancient inhabitants should only use their own language, problem with that is, if they want to eat something at a restaraunt, they could well have problems, or get a job etc. So if a country has one official lanuguagem it is not unreasonable for people who live or work there to speak "that" language.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1187071817
- chromeboomerang - 08-13-2007 10:12 PM
Yeah, they say stuff like that on the radio, don't they? The whole attitude there seems to be "if the facts don't fit, just make s##t up." You'll hear a lot of pretty funny stuff on the radio.
Put it this way: it's a well-known fact that the poor and middle class actually donate a greater percentage of their income than the rich do. Everybody oohs and ahhs about how much Bill Gates donates to charity, but the ironic thing is, the average working stiff donates more, percentage-wise.
Now, it's also a well-known fact that people who vote Democrat (who you'd probably classify as "liberal") are, on average, significantly lower-income than those who vote Republican (who you'd probably classify as "conservative"). That would appear to contradict this new book you're writing about (this new book wouldn't happen to be written by someone like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and ilk, now would it?)
No, it was written by a Liberal University professor, who also mentioned poor conservatives also donated 30& higher than lower income Liberals.
John Stossel's latest 20/20 report ... points out that more than 80 percent of philanthropic giving and volunteering in this country is done by conservatives. The study done over years, according to Stossel, by a self-proclaimed liberal professor at Syracuse University, showed liberals are far less likely to give to any charities, volunteer or even give blood, so this study encompasses every aspect of "personal" giving.
Data proves conservatives will donate more often and give more, even when they have less of an income than their liberal counterpart. It was shown that liberals in general do not feel giving is a personal responsibility, and their reasoning somehow transfers responsibility onto the government.
So, conservatives are actually more truly "liberal" with their possessions and time than are liberals? Fascinating.
That explains why "liberals" want to increase government and social programs. It seems a bit ironic that those who give and volunteer the least are the ones that scream the loudest about increasing the already inefficient government programs to help the less fortunate.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1187072019
- Narrow Way - 08-14-2007 01:34 AM
^ In this context, I'd say,CONservatives are church people, Liberals are non church people. Giving to a church, in my eyes, is not giving to charity.Just as giving to "thinktank" is not a charity. To me , a charity, in the end, helps people.
But let's not get off topic here. Some would like to turn this into a right/left debate, it's not.
This is a bloodsport debate.
NeoCon's greatest tool is obfuscation.
- Sharky - 08-14-2007 05:19 AM
Quote:All I can say is wow.Woweewow.
You can evidently see whatever fits your agenda in what you read.
Nobody cares if you like "liberals". Nobody cares if I like "conservatives". But the tone of your posts is so typical of the snide, indignant attitude of neo cons.
And just how did you overestimate my intelligence? Did you make a snap judgement after reading one post? Kudos.
Man you're just grasping at straws trying to preserve your dogma. Good luck!!
Grasping at straws? Where do I do this?
In your earlier post you didn't believe some of the things I wrote and wanted facts. I presented you facts that backed up what I said.
Now, who is grapsing here? That would be you.
You mention the tone of my posts. Please re-read your posts and see if you can gather a tone from them. But that would be doing some introspection and self-questioning, and its obvious that you're incapable of this.
As far as your intelligence (or lack thereof) is concerned, I won't add more fuel to that. I think you pretty well demonstrated that to the pinkfloyd online world already.
- Sharky - 08-14-2007 05:23 AM
Quote:^ In this context, I'd say,CONservatives are church people, Liberals are non church people. Giving to a church, in my eyes, is not giving to charity.Just as giving to "thinktank" is not a charity. To me , a charity, in the end, helps people.
I think I've now heard it all.
Where do they dig up these people?
- Narrow Way - 08-14-2007 03:41 PM
NeoCon's greatest tool is obfuscation.
Snarky, I've made my last reply to you here. You're obviously a troll, who isn't willing to stay on topic. You're here to argue and try to pass on the beatings you receive from the females in your life. Since you're a Pink Floyd fan, right, I'll draw the similarity to the scene in The Wall where the woman beats the man who in turn is beating the child.
So be proud O'troll, I won't respond, so you can claim a victory on the sieve of an argument you have presented.
Have a nice life in fantasyland. :)
BTW,Snarky, what's your IQ there genius??
Edited By Narrow Way on 1187134924
- Sharky - 08-14-2007 04:01 PM
Sour grapes, Narrow Mind??
Sigh...what an idiot!
- cevor - 08-14-2007 04:55 PM
alright, let's leave this here gents...agree to disagree or whatever you choose, but personal attacks and gross generalizations are unacceptable..continue to discuss if you wish but it must be constructive and devoid of insults from all parties...
- mabewa - 08-14-2007 05:21 PM
Quote:Perhaps in some societies of old Mabewa, but in the here & now, PETA is very left. Perhaps not all left/liberal people share their views as you mention, but they are nonetheless a VERY LEFT group. Left extremist perhaps a more accurate title.
I know that this is very hard for you to understand (and I don't really blame you, considering the propaganda you've been exposed to), but PETA has NOTHING to do with left/right politics. As I mentioned earlier, REAL leftist (ie left extremist) philosophy sees animals as commodities for human use, nothing more. How does this fit in in any way with PETA's philosophy?
It's important to remember that extreme doesn't necessarily mean "extreme left-right"--there are a lot of social or political positions that simply don't fit in to the left-right spectrum at all.
As for "not all left/liberal people share their views," dude, I know hundreds of normal, moderate American left-wingers, and the vast majority of them do not support PETA. (in fact, a lot of them have barely heard of PETA!). Your comments give me the impression that you believe that support for PETA is mainstream among the American left. Knowing the American left as intimately as I do, I can only conclude that someone has been taking you for a ride.
Ted Nugent: I have no problem with his guitar playing or hunting. But, I was recently living in the US Southwest, and his repeated comments of "speak English or get out of the US" really, really annoyed a lot of the local American Hispanics and Indians.
Imagine: you are a young, bilingual Navajo, you are proud of the fact that the Navajo language played a crucial role in winning WWII (without it, we might all be speaking Japanese!), and the people you most respect in the world are your tribal elders, who often speak little or no English. Then, you hear some rich rock star saying that everybody who doesn't speak English should get out of the USA. How would you feel? And, it's not just Indians--should we deport a few million Puerto Ricans for speaking little or no English? Is it that hard to just say something like "immigrants should speak English" and just leave it at that?
And yeah, here in Japan, politicians and other morons sometimes make similar comments, but they catch major hell for it from Okinawans, Ainus, etc. As they should. The Okinawans are gentle people, but if a mainland Japanese were to go around Okinawa saying "speak Japanese or get out of Japan" to all of the old people speaking Okinawan, he'd probably get lynched.
As for the ability to dial 911, this argument always cracks me up. Here in Japan, you can dial 911 in English, Chinese and Korean. English speakers scream if there isn't a service in English in foreign countries, and then they scream IS there is the same service available in other languages in their own countries. It's just plain hypocritical. I'm sure that Ted Nugent uses services in English whenever he tours in non-English speaking countries--why should the US deny similar services to the most-often spoken foreign languages in the US?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say.
Edited By mabewa on 1187141179
- Sharky - 08-14-2007 06:24 PM
Quote:As for "not all left/liberal people share their views," dude, I know hundreds of normal, moderate American left-wingers, and the vast majority of them do not support PETA. (in fact, a lot of them have barely heard of PETA!). Your comments give me the impression that you believe that support for PETA is mainstream among the American left. Knowing the American left as intimately as I do, I can only conclude that someone has been taking you for a ride.
Dude, I know that PETA is not mainstream, even among the liberals and, thank god for that. And I obviously don't consider myself a liberal and don't follow most of their causes closely.
However, because of my background and interests, I do follow PETA and HSUS closely and know these organizations well. And they are liberal leftist groups - even though the majority of leftist liberals do not share their view. Just like there are some right wing conservative groups that are as extreme on the other side. An example would be white supremacist groups like the KKK. An extreme minority agree with their principles (thank god) but nonethless, they are conservative, leaning on the far right political spectrum.
And dude, its not just conservatives who are bombarded with propoganda. Everyone is, even (my gawd) liberals.
Edited By Sharky on 1187145408
- chromeboomerang - 08-14-2007 08:39 PM
- Narrow Way - 08-15-2007 02:30 AM
Frontpagemag .com IS propoganda.
- chromeboomerang - 08-15-2007 09:23 PM
A matter of opinion, Irelevant regarding the Who Really Cares bokk written by a Liberal University professor which again shows even poor conservatives give more to non religious charities than poor Liberals do. Blood donation, PTA, Environmental causes etc.
- chromeboomerang - 08-15-2007 09:24 PM
A matter of opinion, Irelevant anyways regarding the "Who Really Cares" book which was written by a Liberal University professor which again shows even poor conservatives give more to non religious charities than poor Liberals do. Blood donation, PTA, Environmental causes etc by roughly 30%
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1187241914
- Narrow Way - 08-16-2007 02:26 AM
Any organization, on the left or right, which gives biased news is propoganda. I don't think we can debate that.
Myself,I know the party lines. And anytime I hear news or "facts" that parrot either partyline , I basically discount it. Dems and Repubs are out for themselves, somewhere in between is the truth.
- Grguitarfreek100 - 08-16-2007 12:10 PM
Dyolf Wrote:hm, i was unaware of the technicalities of foxing, i guess that sounds a bit grotesque to be practiced. Sounds like something a roman would do.Grguitarfreek100 Wrote:is it that horrible that he huntsYes, if it's for s pointless sport. Hunting rabbits etc for food isn't cruel because the rabbit is shot and dies instantly, it isn't attacked and ripped to pieces by large dogs, just imagine the pain the fox goes through for the "fun" of these hunters.
A few weeks ago, a man was arrested for taking a scissors to a dog's ears, he's now in prison for animal cruelty, is this any different to fox hunting?
- Dyolf - 08-16-2007 02:09 PM
Grguitarfreek100 Wrote:Indeed it does, and the Romans did indeed hunt for fun/sport, just because it's a 'tradition' that doesn't make it right.Dyolf Wrote:hm, i was unaware of the technicalities of foxing, i guess that sounds a bit grotesque to be practiced. Sounds like something a roman would do.Grguitarfreek100 Wrote:is it that horrible that he huntsYes, if it's for s pointless sport. Hunting rabbits etc for food isn't cruel because the rabbit is shot and dies instantly, it isn't attacked and ripped to pieces by large dogs, just imagine the pain the fox goes through for the "fun" of these hunters.
A few weeks ago, a man was arrested for taking a scissors to a dog's ears, he's now in prison for animal cruelty, is this any different to fox hunting?
- chromeboomerang - 08-16-2007 04:56 PM
"Any organization, on the left or right, which gives biased news is propoganda."
Again, it is purely your opinion that it is biased. If you have a link to support that view from a neutral source, fine, if not, not worth mentioning.
& the book again has nothing to do with that organization, hence the irrelevance of the point.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1187312232
- Sydney - 08-16-2007 05:28 PM
Propaganda: "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person" OR "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=propaganda
I've been following this topic for awhile, unsure if I should respond or not, and after seeing the past post I thought I'd chime in. However, this topic just goes to show what's wrong with a lot of the world. It also ends up as "we're right-you're wrong" petty, ineffective debate. Roger supports fox hunters, okay, is that right? I don't know. Some say yes, some no. No where should this have become about PETA and whether or not they left wing or right wing. Everyone has their own opinions, and they support those opinions with facts. If you don't like their opinion, that's alright, but it doesn't make their facts invalid. Just because a fact make go against you opinion does not mean that it is "biased" or dismissive. Facts are proven statements. What facts chose to ignore or include determine the bias of an opinion.
For example, here is a debate between Dyolf and Roger Waters about fox hunting.
Their opinions (forgive for paraphrasing, but for example's sake please go with me Dyolf):
Dyolf: Fox hunting is a cruel sport that should be banned because it involves a fox being used as entertainment and in the end being attacked and killed by dogs .
Roger: Fox hunting should not be banned because it has a long upstanding tradition in England (or wherever it may be).
The facts are in bold. Those facts will never change. Dyolf isn't going to emphasize the fact of fox hunting's tradition and Roger isn't going to discuss the fox's wellbeing, because it doesn't help their opinions and my omitting those facts for the sake of their arguments there is the element of bias.
I have yet to see a text without bias, whether it be a piece or literature, a news program, or even college textbook. If you say you report things or only use things that are unbiased, you either naive or lying to yourself. This topic has been overtaken with argument about left and right and what is a good source and what is propaganda and frankly is just getting old. This isn't the first topic for this and won't be the last, but please stop making us and them. Don't take things so personally, it is a Pink Floyd Message Board and it is a community of people who you for the most part, with a few exception, you will never meet or talk with outside of the board. So just drop it, and talk about fox hunting and Roger.
- chromeboomerang - 08-16-2007 06:45 PM
Yah, & again, the book is based on a legit study, & news sourse not related to it.
- Narrow Way - 08-16-2007 06:52 PM
"If you have a link to support that view from a neutral source, fine, if not, not worth mentioning.'
So I need to provide a link of someone saying the same thing as myself?? :O
Sydney is right. This is old.
And in no way constructive. It just confirms my feelings about conservatives and their need to dominate others. :unclesam:
- chromeboomerang - 08-17-2007 07:38 PM
You brought up this nonconstructiveness I might point out.
Yes, you need to provide a link to support the assertion. Someone else echoing it means little.
"-It just confirms my feelings about conservatives and their need to dominate others. "
More unconstructiveness. I might point out that Conservatives are for small government, & Liberals are not. Therefore, your point doesn't make much sense. Liberals desire more control over the general population.
& Liberals believe in forceful taxation, ( same as 5 people voting around you to surrender your wallet), in any other definition, this is considered theft.
& 80% of taxes are paid by people who make over 10.000$ a year, mostly conservatives. Yet Liberals desire even more taxation of these people,( Hence desired DOMINATION of conservatives by Liberals).
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1187408783
- Grguitarfreek100 - 08-17-2007 08:25 PM
amen well put chrome!
Im a concervative in idealogy, as in the small government etc., but for some reason my values are hugely liberal.
i may have just contradicted myself. :Oo:
- chromeboomerang - 08-17-2007 08:49 PM
I'd call myself a progressive Libertarian if anything.
Depende on issue. Many avenues I have Conservative values, but Pro choice because I think it's a family choice, & I don't want the Government telling me or anyone else how to run their family biz.
Pro environment to a degree, but still like to go fishing. Some extremists would take that away as well on the left.
& special interest groups should stay out of public school system. I don't care if it's Jerry Falwell or Rainbow coalition. Keep your agenda to youself thankyou very much.
I will run my own family & don't need guidance from either of these political circles. Kids need the 3 R's, ( readin, writin, Rithmatic), not extreme values teachings from either the Left or Right.
We've gone off topic a bit here though.
- Narrow Way - 08-18-2007 03:11 AM
chromeboomerang Wrote:You brought up this nonconstructiveness I might point out.Where are the links to support your assertions?? :;):
Yes, you need to provide a link to support the assertion. Someone else echoing it means little.
"-It just confirms my feelings about conservatives and their need to dominate others. "
More unconstructiveness. I might point out that Conservatives are for small government, & Liberals are not. Therefore, your point doesn't make much sense. Liberals desire more control over the general population.
& Liberals believe in forceful taxation, ( same as 5 people voting around you to surrender your wallet), in any other definition, this is considered theft.
& 80% of taxes are paid by people who make over 10.000$ a year, mostly conservatives. Yet Liberals desire even more taxation of these people,( Hence desired DOMINATION of conservatives by Liberals).
I agree with what you're pointing out here, I guess I see things from a different point of view. I came of age under Reagan. Then Bush, now again another Bush.A Clinton, and now again,the possibility of another Clinton makes me cringe, and wonder what's happening to our country.
I definitely have ala carte political ideology also. And this is my beef with two dominant political parties, right or left. Special interest v special interest. Not much representation for the average person with their feet on the streets of their community.
But I do apologize to all for my hand in helping to hi-jack this thread.
- chromeboomerang - 08-18-2007 09:44 PM
- Narrow Way - 08-19-2007 06:43 AM
- chromeboomerang - 08-19-2007 01:47 PM
"If you have a link to support that view from a neutral source, fine, if not, not worth mentioning.'
"Yes, you need to provide a link to support the assertion"
by, chromeboomerang
Dude, I just gave you a link/source above. IRS not good enough?
& while we're on this topic, I think it worth mentioning Conservative people are real tired of all the hate Libs vent at them. They give more than Libs do, & pay for the programs Liberals value, welfare etc. What on earth do these people want? blood?
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1187560201
- mabewa - 08-19-2007 05:23 PM
Quote:More unconstructiveness. I might point out that Conservatives are for small government, & Liberals are not. Therefore, your point doesn't make much sense. Liberals desire more control over the general population.
Hmmm. I thought that George Bush had destroyed this myth forever, but it seems to have lived on. Does "control over the general population" happen to include things like phone-tapping, sodomy laws, people losing their land over small quanities or marijuana, and abortion outlawed even in cases of rape and incest? Because, last time I checked, it was (many) conservatives who favored these things.
Speaking of libertarians, I know a LOT of libertarians, and the Libertarian party itself repeatedly points out that government had GROWN considerably under George Bush. Real libertarians have always denounced the "conservatives favor small government" myth. I think that the Libertarian Party is a good example of an unbiased point of view in this matter, seeing that they support neither the Democrat and Republican party.
This is a good example of why looking at everything in terms of left/right ends up distorting reality. One way of describing things in a more nuanced way: both the left and right have authoritarian and liberal wings (really, "liberal" should mean "favoring LESS government"). George Bush, for example, goes pretty far out on the authoritarian side, while Barry Goldwater went pretty far out on the libertarian side. Both are "conservatives," but they are sometimes as different from each other as the left and right are.
A lot of rural "liberals" I know actually fit the word "liberal" in that they are are against many kinds of government (they want a small military, less foreign intervention, smaller jails, an end to the drug war, less power for Homeland Security, fewer laws regulating homosexuality, abortion, etc., a less powerful presidency, to give just a few examples). They do support a social safety net, but favor keeping government relatively small by cutting back on some of the things mentioned above. They also tend to be less supportive of things like gun control. These people are definitely on the anti-authoritarian wing of liberalism. They often find a lot of agreement with libertarians and Goldwater-type conservatives on many issues, and find it easy to form alliances with those groups against Bushism (big government conservatism). Many urban liberals, however, tend to be more authoritarian.
I am not a conservative, but I do respect real, old-fashioned fiscal conservatives: people who believe in small government AND low taxes. I also don't mind "tax and spend," as long as both the taxing and spending are done relatively responsibly, and as long as they balance themselves out.
My real problem is with the new kind of "conservatism" (frankly, I don't think that it merits the label "conservative") of "borrow and spend." I understand why people oppose "tax and spend," but frankly, I'll take tax and spend over borrow and spend any day. It's just a matter of responsibility: if I'm making less money, I'll spend less. I was brought up by my "liberal" parents to live modestly and always have money in the bank. If I happen to make more money, then I don't have a problem with spending it, but that's only if I can afford spending more. Why should I expect any less out of my government?
Quote:In this context, I'd say,CONservatives are church people, Liberals are non church people.
This is an over-generalization. Yes, conservatives TEND to be more church-going than "liberals," but the US has always had a "religious left" as well, and these people are, frankly, the most charity-oriented people that I've met in the entire world. Next time you're in Seattle, you might notice that there seems to be a church on literally every block. If you visit these churches, you'll find that the majority are VERY liberal (liberation theology and all that). When I moved to Seattle as a teenager, I was involved in a number of social activities (for example, running homeless shelters, teaching English to recent immigrants), and I was constantly around a lot of people who were both very religious and very left-wing. Long story short: a substantial faction of US "liberals" are very religious, not to mention very inclined towards giving to various social causes, charities or otherwise.
Edited By mabewa on 1187577841
- Narrow Way - 08-19-2007 05:31 PM
^ Your linkless sources are fine with me. No worries here. You brought links up.
" while we're on this topic, I think it worth mentioning Conservative people are real tired of all the hate Libs vent at them. They give more than Libs do, & pay for the programs Liberals value, welfare etc. What on earth do these people want? blood? "
I couldn't care less what Cons or Libs want. Blood or power, whatever.
Maybe you're young or have selective memory,but I recall tireless venom from the rightwing while Clinton held office. The conservatives made an ugly bed they now have to lay in. I'd say they're lucky the Liberals have no guts or unified direction. I mean, lets face it,the conservatives have the American govt.,the economy and our position in the world, in a complete shambles. An opposition worth their salt would be much harder on them than the Democrat liberals are.
And cb,I don't have a link, but I hope you'll not dismiss my point because of that. :;):
- Narrow Way - 08-19-2007 05:36 PM
Mabewa, your definition of "rural liberals" fits me to a tee.
Thanks for that. :)
- mabewa - 08-20-2007 07:43 AM
- chromeboomerang - 08-21-2007 10:47 PM
- Narrow Way - 08-22-2007 02:13 AM
" but still produced more intelligent sensitive/ethical people, ( baby boomers), than the current left leaning parents of today are."
Link to support this nonsense please.From a reputable source please.
- mabewa - 08-23-2007 07:15 AM
Quote:So, it's kind of weird to hear PETA described as ultra-left wing.
Yet it happens almost daily round the clock. Nothing unusual really about it. They attend many left functions & rallies,etc, therefore by who they associate with by default, essentially they fall on the left.
I think I get the problem here--you are classifying "left" as "anyone who has weird politics that I can't figure out who isn't obviously right-wing."
I'm not sure if this is possible for you to understand, but a lot of people, events and movements just don't fit into your left-right spectrum very well. Almost all "functions and rallies" I've ever been to have quite a mix of people politically. An anti-Iraq war rally, for example, will have liberals, libertarians, anarchists, moderates and conservatives--really quite a mix. Pro-choice? LOTS of libertarians and anarchists at those things, as well as plenty of moderates, plus a fair number of soccer-mom suburban Republicans. Anti NAFTA? Well, you won't get any libertarians at those things, but plenty of protectionalist-oriented conservatives and anti-big business anarchists.
For all I know, there may be some animal-rights people wandering around at these things too, but I'm not really sure what they'd be doing there--save the Iraqi zoo animals? Free trade hurts lab rats? I'm grasping at straws here, because I really actually noticed animal rights people at ANY kind of events except for, of course, animal right-rights events. They demonstrate in front of department stores and yell at old ladies wearing fur coats and stuff like that--I've seen 'em, but I can't help noticing that they don't seem to be able to get more than a few dozens people together at a time--quite different from any kind of progressive cause. A lot of 'em look like they are about 14 years old, too. Real scary compared to Al Quaida--got me hiding under my bed, those kids do.
From my experience, animal-rights people are a breed unto themselves. They mix with environmentalists like oil and water, and they could care less about most actual left-wing issues like public health care, unions, minimum wages, etc. Animal-rights is pretty much the be-all, end-all of their ideology. When they have events and functions, it's all about one thing: animal rights. As I noted above, some of them are anarchists, but a lot of them seem to have no politics at all--just middle class kids with a pet cause, no pun intended.
Plenty of people from all over the political spectrum care about animal WELFARE, but that's another story. Spay your cat? Eat free-range chicken? Oppose bear-baiting and cock-fighting? Like it or not, that stuff is pretty much mainstream, so much so that people rarely feel the need to demonstrate over it.
Quote:& Conservatism is closer to Mom & Pop Americanism, apple pie, kids to bed at 8.30 etc. Which many on the left enjoy poking fun at, but still produced more intelligent sensitive/ethical people, ( baby boomers), than the current left leaning parents of today are.
PURE biased opinion here. Let me tell it to you as someone who has traveled all over the world and hung out with people all over the political spectrum: parents of pretty much all over the political spectrum regularly produce intelligent, sensitive and ethnical kids. My (very liberal) parents were so goddamn good that people I barely knew in my little rural community used to tell my brother and me "you kids don't know how lucky you are." A lot of left-wing parents are actually great at protecting their kids from some of the bad influences of modern society: fast food, violent video games, movies and TV, consumerist values, etc. I was raised with DAMN good values, and I'm proud of it. Growing up in a politically mixed small town, I learned to accept and tolerate people with different political views. Everyone knew who the good parents were, and it had nothing to do with liberal and conservative. I'd NEVER suggest that conservative parents were no good. Don't knock what you don't know. There is much more to life than left and right.
- spinstergirl - 08-23-2007 04:05 PM
A lot of people miss the real point here. Fox hunting was done because at one time there was a very large fox population in England. The dogs were used to help in pest control as the fox killed the poultry. England is no longer the huge chicken farmer it was. What really bothers me is the thought of anyone getting enjoyment out of watching a creature torn apart and killed. Its not the sign of a great civilization,rember the Romans. Humanity should have evolved beyond cruelity by now. Its not right for Roger or for Michael Vick. Maybe it's just some stupid macho thing.
- cevor - 08-23-2007 04:10 PM
spinstergirl Wrote:A lot of people miss the real point here. Fox hunting was done because at one time there was a very large fox population in England. The dogs were used to help in pest control as the fox killed the poultry. England is no longer the huge chicken farmer it was. What really bothers me is the thought of anyone getting enjoyment out of watching a creature torn apart and killed. Its not the sign of a great civilization,rember the Romans. Humanity should have evolved beyond cruelity by now. Its not right for Roger or for Michael Vick. Maybe it's just some stupid macho thing.yea, a unibrow kinda thing..nicely said and it reinforces my Romanesque point from earlier...there's just no justification for it...
this started out as a simple thread... :upside:
- cevor - 08-23-2007 05:59 PM
rolanddoe Wrote:Why cevor say no justification unibrow?no justification now...down there big boy...playing fox not sound good like playing bass.. :???:
- mabewa - 08-23-2007 07:22 PM
Rolanddoe! Where ya been?
- chromeboomerang - 08-26-2007 11:50 AM
- Sydney - 08-26-2007 12:34 PM
chromeboomerang Wrote:OK Narrow,will seek a link. Meanwhile, you are held to the same standard, if you state it's nonsense, prove it.What the F*#$? Libs are to blame for the faultering education in the United States? I'm sorry-who came up with "No Child Left Behind"? Oh that's right, Dubya did, and then he underfunded it by 27 billion dollars.
youth of today are less intelligent than the baby boomer generation were/are. That is easy to prove with statistical comaprisons in education. Some kids today don't even know England is an island. & education has been controlled by Liberals for last 30 years. Who's to blame? libs obviously to a large extent.
Liberals are the only ones willing to put any money into buying new textbooks, adding technology into classrooms and increasing pay for teachers. 20 years ago Reagan tried to kill Head Start (a program to help kids who were high risk for academic problems) and he tried eliminate the ENTIRE Dept. of Education. It seems to me that Conservatives like you are trying to get rid of public education.
As a student entering the classrooms to be a teacher, your comments are unbelieveably offensive-to say that libs don't care education. None of my conservative counter-parts would dare entire the urban "focus" schools-because those kids are "bad". They could care less about kids who have to support a family at age 16, and they care less about kids who have no one to go home too. Maybe you should think about that. The problem with our education system is that everyone can point out what is wrong and how we're failing, but then no one wants to come in and help. No one wants to support the students.
And one more thing...if we're so far behind in math and science education, why do so many forigen students come here to study math and engineering? :???: Oh, that's right-because we're leading the engineering field.
This has nothing to do with fox-hunting. But I can't stand this stupidity that has gone on. Chromeboomerang, you should be ashamed. It is people like you who continue to breed hate towards people you don't agree with. In the United States we have freedom of speech and freedom of belief. The Democratic Party is the oldest party in the United States, and it isn't going anywhere. This country hasn't been hurt by liberals, and it hasn't been hurt by conservatives-it has been hurt by people who are scared to hear from the other side of the aisle.
- mabewa - 08-26-2007 05:33 PM
Quote:What the F*#$? Libs are to blame for the faultering education in the United States? I'm sorry-who came up with "No Child Left Behind"? Oh that's right, Dubya did, and then he underfunded it by 27 billion dollars.
Liberals are the only ones willing to put any money into buying new textbooks, adding technology into classrooms and increasing pay for teachers. 20 years ago Reagan tried to kill Head Start (a program to help kids who were high risk for academic problems) and he tried eliminate the ENTIRE Dept. of Education. It seems to me that Conservatives like you are trying to get rid of public education.
As a student entering the classrooms to be a teacher, your comments are unbelieveably offensive-to say that libs don't care education. None of my conservative counter-parts would dare entire the urban "focus" schools-because those kids are "bad". They could care less about kids who have to support a family at age 16, and they care less about kids who have no one to go home too. Maybe you should think about that. The problem with our education system is that everyone can point out what is wrong and how we're failing, but then no one wants to come in and help. No one wants to support the students.
And one more thing...if we're so far behind in math and science education, why do so many forigen students come here to study math and engineering? :???: Oh, that's right-because we're leading the engineering field.
This has nothing to do with fox-hunting. But I can't stand this stupidity that has gone on. Chromeboomerang, you should be ashamed. It is people like you who continue to breed hate towards people you don't agree with. In the United States we have freedom of speech and freedom of belief. The Democratic Party is the oldest party in the United States, and it isn't going anywhere. This country hasn't been hurt by liberals, and it hasn't been hurt by conservatives-it has been hurt by people who are scared to hear from the other side of the aisle.
Hear, hear!
By the way, EVERY study that has EVER been done about Head Start shows that it works--it's one of the best programs the US has ever come up with. I know plenty of conservatives who support it (you have to be a really ideological not to), but since most of the cuts and proposed eliminations have come from the political right... the whole "blame the libs" rhetoric sound pretty ironic in this context.
There are some conservatives (and libertarians) who want to get rid of public education entirely, based partially on a fantasy that everybody was better educated before public education messed everything up. This is AMAZINGLY historically inaccurate--incontrovertible fact: before public education, most people were illiterate, after public education, most people are literate.
One more thing: Chromeboomerang--you mention lack of geographical knowledge as evidence that our educational system is declining. I'm sorry, but knowing a lot of both liberals and conservatives, I hate to stereotype, but in my experience, left-wing Americans (and left-wing areas of the country) tend to have far better geographical knowledge, on average, than their conservative counterparts. Of course, there are major exceptions to this, but I've met conservatives who literally couldn't tell Iran and Iraq apart, who thought we were at war with Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war, who mix up Japan and China (started talking about Tiananmen Square when I told them that I live in Japan), who refer to Africa as a "country" (not just George Bush!), who think that people speak "Latin" in Latin America (not just Dan Quayle), and who repeatedly confuse Mexicans and Spanish (this is like confusing Americans and British). There was a poll a few years back that showed that more than half of high-school graduates in Texas could not name the country that lay on the southern border of Texas--last time I checked, Texas was not a blue state!
I could go on, but I won't--suffice to say that from my experience it's pretty hypocritical to blame lack of geographic knowledge on "liberals."
Oh, BTW, speaking of which, "England" is NOT an island--England is ON an island, or PART OF an island, but there is no island called "England." Saying "England is an island" is like saying "The United States is a continent." GREAT BRITAIN is indeed an island, but Scotland and Wales are not part of England.
Edited By mabewa on 1188178837
- Narrow Way - 08-26-2007 05:42 PM
:)
- Amused - 08-26-2007 08:08 PM
Comfortably9Numb Wrote:im sure that wasn't the ONLY reason he left Britian, there must have been some other reasons other than that he just didn't want them noted because he talks about them in his songs (Tony Blair was in office when he left i believe)He moved because he wanted to be close to his son Jack who is 9 years old. As you know Roger grew up without a father so he didn't want his son to to have same childhood as his. However he still owns homes in England and travels back and forth every other week, that article is propaganda! You know Britains press was never found of Roger and his music therefore they'll try to portray him as a bad guy in every way possible. (but not for me) Roger is my hero.
Amused to death
- Amused - 08-28-2007 08:46 PM
Quote:"Giving to a church, in my eyes, is not giving to charity"
I totaly agree with you, Saturday night was watching CNN a special program hosted by Christian Amanpour - A christian church in Florida was collecting money in support of some election that was going on in Izrael? go figure....
- chromeboomerang - 08-28-2007 10:55 PM
& Goals 2000, also known as outcome based education, ( Clinton sponsored * backed), has the alltime worst statistical performance of any program in US history.
& again, you're forgetting Liberals even under Republican administrations have been in charge of education for last 30 yrs. Statement above still stands.
- Sydney - 08-29-2007 05:05 PM
chromeboomerang Wrote:& Goals 2000, also known as outcome based education, ( Clinton sponsored * backed), has the alltime worst statistical performance of any program in US history.No, the Department of Education is headed by President-Appointed people. During Reagan's years, it was Elizabeth Dole and she's definitely a Conservative.
& again, you're forgetting Liberals even under Republican administrations have been in charge of education for last 30 yrs. Statement above still stands.
Edited By Sydney on 1188435995
- mabewa - 08-29-2007 05:43 PM
Quote:& Goals 2000, also known as outcome based education, ( Clinton sponsored * backed), has the all time worst statistical performance of any program in US history.
& again, you're forgetting Liberals even under Republican administrations have been in charge of education for last 30 yrs. Statement above still stands.
Dude, you can't even define the word "liberal" (it isn't capitalized, btw, unless you are talking about the name of a political party, as in, for example, the right-wing Japanese Liberal Democratic Party), so your claims of what "liberals" have or haven't been in control of are basically meaningless. To you, "liberal" seems to be "something I disagree with that isn't obviously politically right-wing." I almost envy your ability to simplify complex issues into liberal/conservative, but it really doesn't help understanding. Are you actually capable of simply debating issues?
Just to give you an example of how these things are not nearly so clear-cut as you're trying to make them: "outcome based education" is also known as "standards-based education," which is actually a CONSERVATIVE cause in most parts of the world (Maggie Thatcher was big on it, for example), and which was also popular among US Republicans until Clinton got on the bandwagon.
Most of the Republican opposition to Goals 2000 was based on a perceived lack of local educational control, not on the concept of outcomes-based education (when you think about it, whether or not the US Democrat party supports it, there is nothing "liberal" about outcomes-based education!).
Also, Bush's No Child Left Behind is basically an extension of Goals 2000, so has it suddenly became "conservative" because Bush supported it? Support and rebellion against No Child Left Behind has come from both the left and right, so can we classify it as left or right at all?
Big business has backed both Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind, so what does that make those laws: liberal or conservative? Do we NEED to label it? Does that really help us understand anything?
In my experience, regardless of who originally voted for the laws in question, standards-based education has generally been supported by the more authoritarian-type right-wingers and left-wingers, and has been opposed by more libertarian right-wingers and left-wingers. In other words, it's no longer a clearly left or right issue, and never really was, despite whatever happens to be politically in vogue at the moment.
I'd love to debate education, immigration, gun control, the Iraq war, health care, etc., with anyone, but it's totally boring and meaningless to try to take every complex issue, put them into exactly two categories, "liberal" and "conservative" (two words that aren't even USED CORRECTLY as synonyms with "left" and "right"), and then pretend that everyone is either pro or con. The world doesn't work that way.
Edited By mabewa on 1188439640
- Narrow Way - 08-29-2007 05:46 PM
^ You're right. My appologies. :unclesam:
- chromeboomerang - 08-29-2007 08:02 PM
"No, the Department of Education is headed by President-Appointed people."
Irrelevant, only 1 person. The bulk of persons involved in US education policy making & administration have been predominately Democrats over last 30 yrs.
& I think it bears mentioning the areas of the US that do the best are places like Chicago, North Dakota, which are mostly Conservative areas. State education boards have to be taken into consideration, not just Presidential appointees who do not have an iron grip on state level education policy making & administration.
"Also, Bush's No Child Left Behind is basically an extension of Goals 2000, so has it suddenly became "conservative" because Bush supported it? "
This is true, however it's creation was done in prior administration's tenure, & again it's implementation countrywide would still be done largely by Democrats.
but it's totally boring and meaningless to try to take every complex issue, put them into exactly two categories, "liberal" and "conservative"
& please note, I have not done this. We are chatting a specific subject, not many across the boards. Comment dismissed.
"so your claims of what "liberals" have or haven't been in control of are basically meaningless"
Um, no. it is well known by millions of intelligent people that this is the case regarding education in the US.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1188447485
- chromeboomerang - 08-29-2007 08:16 PM
For what it's worth, I have a good friend who is an education lobbyist & activist. Goals 2000 in several highschools had the highest non advance to college rate of all time in those schools where it was studied. 20-30 percent dropout increase roughly as well. Don't have exact figures to hand, but that is essentially the results.
Another note of interest was an educator in SLC few years ago proposed going back to what was done in the 50's, ( which produced better results), i.e. the 3 R's, Reading, writing & arithmatic. He was lambasted by the predominately Liberal educators & labelled an insensitive brute & Conservative neanderthal etc.
"Are you actually capable of simply debating issues?"
Yes. Are you capable of processing known verified data?
Here's proof that the NEA, National Education Association is "very" leftwing.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/july06/06-07-26.html
Parents who wonder why the public schools teach so many things parents don't approve of need look no further than the official policies of the nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA). Meeting in Orlando this year in annual convention over the Fourth of July weekend, the NEA adopted a long series of left-liberal resolutions.
Word leaked out several weeks ahead of time that the convention was ready to take the plunge and endorse same-sex marriage. That would be no surprise, since the NEA usually passes at least a dozen resolutions promoting the gay rights agenda.
Other NEA resolutions that have nothing to do with education include calling for national health care and statehood for the District of Columbia. To nobody's surprise, the NEA opposes any requirement that a school schedule a moment of silence.
After reading the NEA resolutions and policies, parents should reflect on last year's decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fields v. Palmdale School District. The court ruled that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1188448812
- White Like Jesus - 08-30-2007 05:46 AM
Oh no! Same sex marriage!
- Sydney - 08-30-2007 10:57 AM
chromeboomerang Wrote:Here's proof that the NEA, National Education Association is "very" leftwing.That article is written by Phyllis Schlafly, a woman who spent most of the sixties and seventies protesting Women's Rights, Gay Rights, and rights in general. She's a hard core conservative, of course she's going to say everything she doesn't like is "liberal"...
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/july06/06-07-26.html
Parents who wonder why the public schools teach so many things parents don't approve of need look no further than the official policies of the nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA). Meeting in Orlando this year in annual convention over the Fourth of July weekend, the NEA adopted a long series of left-liberal resolutions.
Word leaked out several weeks ahead of time that the convention was ready to take the plunge and endorse same-sex marriage. That would be no surprise, since the NEA usually passes at least a dozen resolutions promoting the gay rights agenda.
Other NEA resolutions that have nothing to do with education include calling for national health care and statehood for the District of Columbia. To nobody's surprise, the NEA opposes any requirement that a school schedule a moment of silence.
After reading the NEA resolutions and policies, parents should reflect on last year's decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fields v. Palmdale School District. The court ruled that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."
- Narrow Way - 08-30-2007 02:45 PM
Eagleforum, frontpagemag.....No bias or agenda here.
- chromeboomerang - 08-30-2007 11:15 PM
Bias or not is unimportant. The measures the NEA support is the data of relevance, not the messenger.
- DAaaMan64 - 08-31-2007 10:51 AM
I thought we had all already clarified that Roger Waters is a huge douche bag?
Anyway, if you haven't seen the educational system is the US, it sucks. Seriously teachers aren't punished for doing a bad job. In fact every year all teacher's are given a raise regardless of performance. I don't see that as right.
In terms of standardized testing, I am going to say I support it, standard material through till at least high school should make sense. I always hear some bull **** from teacher's like, "Now all I ever do teach stuff from the test." Well duh, of course you do you retard, thats standardizing the material we teach young kids. So that when they are ready to decide what they want to learn, they have an equal grasp on it.
I don't really have anything against hunting as long as it is a very regulated hobby. I don't actually hunt myself.
- Narrow Way - 08-31-2007 12:34 PM
"I thought we had all already clarified that Roger Waters is a huge douche bag?"
Who's WE? Whiteman.
"Anyway, if you haven't seen the educational system is the US, it sucks. Seriously teachers aren't punished for doing a bad job. In fact every year all teacher's are given a raise regardless of performance. I don't see that as right.
In terms of standardized testing, I am going to say I support it, standard material through till at least high school should make sense. I always hear some bull **** from teacher's like, "Now all I ever do teach stuff from the test." Well duh, of course you do you retard, thats standardizing the material we teach young kids. So that when they are ready to decide what they want to learn, they have an equal grasp on it."
So we should standardize curriculum, but not pay? And it's the teachers fault a kid with fetal alcohol syndrome or some other deficiency isn't up to par?
Time to rethink that.
- Narrow Way - 08-31-2007 12:36 PM
"Bias or not is unimportant. The measures the NEA support is the data of relevance, not the messenger."
Naive or brainwashed?
- mabewa - 08-31-2007 06:54 PM
Quote:Parents who wonder why the public schools teach so many things parents don't approve of need look no further than the official policies of the nation's largest teachers union, the National Education Association (NEA). Meeting in Orlando this year in annual convention over the Fourth of July weekend, the NEA adopted a long series of left-liberal resolutions.
Word leaked out several weeks ahead of time that the convention was ready to take the plunge and endorse same-sex marriage. That would be no surprise, since the NEA usually passes at least a dozen resolutions promoting the gay rights agenda.
Other NEA resolutions that have nothing to do with education include calling for national health care and statehood for the District of Columbia. To nobody's surprise, the NEA opposes any requirement that a school schedule a moment of silence.
After reading the NEA resolutions and policies, parents should reflect on last year's decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Fields v. Palmdale School District. The court ruled that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."
NOW I get it. Phyllis Schlafly is not exactly a good source of information--in fact, she's a borderline wingnut. If you're using the likes of her as an actual source of facts, then no wonder you're confused. You don't hear me quoting Michael Moore as a source of information, and no-one should be quoting Schlafly. Nice lady, perhaps, but she's a "if the facts don't fit, make them up" type.
An obvious point here: yes, the NEA is left-wing, it's a labor union, fer Crissakes. Now, you've actually found some real left-wingers. But, get this, the NEA does NOT control US education. It has an influence, yes, but US educational policy quite often goes SHARPLY against what the NEA wants. For example, the NEA has been fairly critical of standardized testing, which is one of the most important components of both Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind.
Again, this world is a complex place, and painting it as a liberal vs. conservative contest is not going to help you understand it.
Also, even the NEA (the most genuine left-wing organization you've managed to bring up here) has a plenty of conservative members--my old girlfriend's mom, for example, was far right-wing, a schoolteacher, and an NEA member, though she did understandably complain about its politics.
Also, I can't help but notice the irony here: while you're lecturing us about how liberals are so bad at education, you've managed to tell us that "England is an island," you seem to think that political labels like "liberal" and "conservative" need to be capitalized (some hints: it's obvious that you're not a Democrat, but since you are an American I assume you are a democrat. Maggie Thatcher was a Conservative AND a conservative, but George Bush is just a conservative), and you've used an article by Phyllis Schlafly as "proof" that the US education is controlled by "liberals." Your article MIGHT be called "evidence," but it certainly isn't "proof."
Anyway, how come I know these things, despite being educated in "liberal" Washington State, and you don't? The American South is currently the most consistently right-wing part of the country--are you going to tell me that they actually have the best education there? They certainly didn't do a very good job with THIS individual:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Just one more thing, just to get even farther off the topic: here's my personal take on the "gay rights agenda" in a nutshell:
"Be treated the same as everyone else."
BTW, it cracked me up when Schlafly's son came out of the closet. That's what's called KARMA, folks.
- Narrow Way - 08-31-2007 07:13 PM
:)
- mabewa - 08-31-2007 08:20 PM
I gotta say, my own views on education don't comfortably fit in the left-right spectrum either. I actually agreed with US conservatives in the 80's and early 90's that the US education system did not have enough standards, and needed to get back to the basics to a certain degree.
On the other hand, I am deeply ambivalent about the changes in the education system that we've seen under the Clinton and Bush II administrations. In a nutshell, the US educational system is becoming a lot more like the Japanese educational system, which is both good and bad from my point of view. Japanese students are much better at math, science and geography than American students are--better at knowing hard, cold facts, but they are worse at things like debate, critical thinking, and creativity. The Japanese system is very standardized-test based, and I do think that, too often, Japanese students are simply taught to pass tests. It makes me uncomfortable to see the US going in the same direction.
Although, as I explain above, Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind don't fit neatly in the right/left spectrum, to me, as a more libertarian left-winger, they are more right-wing than left-wing--certainly, they are more in line with what right-wingers generally support in most of the world. On the other hand, there is a strong libertarian faction in the US right, so I understand why some of the US right is strongly against standards-based education, even though standards-based education was originally more of a conservative cause (to be honest, I think that a lot of US conservatives opposed it simply because Clinton supported it!)
Anyway, in Japan, the political left strongly supports going in a LESS goals-based, standards-based direction, and for a more freewheeling direction, like US education used to be. I agree with them, but I wouldn't want to see them go too far. From what I've heard, some countries (Finland is a good example), manage to strike a pretty good balance between standards and creativity, and I hope both the US and Japan can find that kind of happy medium.
Japan is actually a very good example of how teachers unions don't control educational systems. First, the Japanese teachers unions are very liberal and fairly left-wing as well. This may come as a big surprise to anyone who's read about all of the controversy about the rightward, nationalist trend in Japanese education, but it's true. The Japanese teachers unions want to teach the truth about what Japan did in WWII (they don't want to deny things like comfort women and The Rape of Nanjing), and they don't want examples of enforced patriotism like singing the national anthem and saluting the flag.
On the other hand, Japan is usually controlled by the Liberal Democrat Party, who are very right-wing (another example of how "liberal" doesn't necessarily mean "left-wing"!). Recently, the nationalist factions of the Japanese right have become more powerful in the LDP, and they are removing information from textbooks about bad things Japan did in the past, creating classes about patriotism. and they are doing like making everyone sing the national anthem in school. The teachers unions are opposed to these things, but they've essentially failed at opposing them. Teachers who do things like refuse to have their classes sing the national anthem have been reported by right-wing parents and have gotten in trouble at work as a result. Essentially, teachers unions are important, but they aren't the people who are running educational systems.
- chromeboomerang - 09-02-2007 09:52 PM
as I explain above, Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind don't fit neatly in the right/left spectrum, to me, as a more libertarian left-winger, they are more right-wing than left-wing-
Simply false regards Goals 2000, which feature the "lets not give Johnny an F cause it will hurt his self esteem" crap. THAT is left thinking without doubt.
Naive or brainwashed?
Neither thankyou. Your post does highlite the endless hate of the left rather nicely I must say. The post was in reference to the measures supported by the NEA. Seek these yourself if you've some doubt.
here's another source, I could go on all day with these, the data & point remains the same.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2006/january/0106_nea_dems.shtml
Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the NEA gave $65 million last year to liberal groups such as People for the American Way, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), and the Human Rights Campaign, which is the largest pro-homosexual lobby in the U.S.
Mike Antonucci with the California-based Education Intelligence Agency has been monitoring the NEA for years. He says the new rules have not changed the NEA's political activity, but they help reveal the union's extensive contributions to left-wing causes.
she's a borderline wingnut. If you're using the likes of her as an actual source of facts, then no wonder you're confused.
Not confused, but thankyou again for negative innuendo, that & the name calling again highlits Liberal hate. I have not met the person in question & I doubt you have either, so labeling a stranger a wingnut again tells the tale.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1188799365
- Narrow Way - 09-03-2007 08:32 AM
Narrow Way Wrote:"Bias or not is unimportant. The measures the NEA support is the data of relevance, not the messenger."Endless hate of the left??? Man are you smokin gym socks or something? This has to be a parody. :D
Naive or brainwashed?
- chromeboomerang - 09-03-2007 12:19 PM
No, don't smoke. But again, thanks for negative innuendo. Fascinating how the same pattern of name calling & insults by those on the left towards people who are different from them, or think/feel differently from them appears again & again regularly like clockwork. Similiar attitudes & sentiment were commonplace in 30's, 40's era Germany. Those who were "different" got similiar treatment. On a lesser scale perhaps, but still similiar attitude, those who are different must be bad people.
- Sydney - 09-03-2007 12:37 PM
chromeboomerang Wrote:No, don't smoke. But again, thanks for negative innuendo. Fascinating how the same pattern of name calling & insults by those on the left towards people who are different from them, or think/feel differently from them appears again & again regularly like clockwork. Similiar attitudes & sentiment were commonplace in 30's, 40's era Germany. Those who were "different" got similiar treatment. On a lesser scale perhaps, but still similiar attitude, those who are different must be bad people.You are comparing yourself to the Jews and Communist of Europe? Names can hurt....but camps killed. :???: Interestingly enough...the Nazis were ultra conservative...
- Narrow Way - 09-03-2007 01:00 PM
chromeboomerang Wrote:No, don't smoke. But again, thanks for negative innuendo. Fascinating how the same pattern of name calling & insults by those on the left towards people who are different from them, or think/feel differently from them appears again & again regularly like clockwork. Similiar attitudes & sentiment were commonplace in 30's, 40's era Germany. Those who were "different" got similiar treatment. On a lesser scale perhaps, but still similiar attitude, those who are different must be bad people.You're an absolute moron. Spin that how you want to. Boil it down, and you're a moron.
And ya know, I'm finished with this thread. Before you know it, chrome****plug will be arguing with an alias he created.
- chromeboomerang - 09-03-2007 02:28 PM
I rest my case. You've just cemented my point.
Nazis also believed in gun control, similiar to many modern Democrats/liberals. The point in comparing was the intolerance vented by the left at those who think/feel differently is similiar to Nazi views on non Germans, not as extreme as I stated, ut similiar in attitude no doubt.
Read Lesbian author Tammy Bruce's views on this. She was head of NOW in L.A. for awhile. She's got loads of 1st hand experience.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1188858859
- mabewa - 09-03-2007 05:54 PM
Quote:No, don't smoke. But again, thanks for negative innuendo. Fascinating how the same pattern of name calling & insults by those on the left towards people who are different from them, or think/feel differently from them appears again & again regularly like clockwork. Similiar attitudes & sentiment were commonplace in 30's, 40's era Germany. Those who were "different" got similiar treatment. On a lesser scale perhaps, but still similiar attitude, those who are different must be bad people.
Uh... the Nazis were RIGHT WING. And yes, they persecuted people who were "different," like left-wingers, religious minorities, homosexuals and ethnic minorities. Interestingly, they claimed that such groups had agendas and were actually a threat to the German majority.
Sound familiar? Who spews hate against religious minorities, ethnic minorities, left-wingers and homosexuals today? Liberals? Uh, no, that would be conservatives. SOME conservatives, that is. In my experience, MOST conservatives are decent, non-hateful people. But, there IS a literal cottage industry of hate in the US, personified by the likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. This is to say nothing of the continued existence of far-right neo-nazi hate groups.
Again, I wish to stress that MOST conservatives don't agree with these people, especially the racist groups, but, Ann Coulter's books regularly become #1 bestsellers. Apparently, a lot of people agree with these books enough to buy them regularly.
Just to give you an example of Coulter's rhetoric, she advocated that the US, and I quote " physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." So, we should "physically intimidate" people with different political views? The scariest part was that she made this statement at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), and the audience, which included Lynn Cheney, APPLAUDED. So, my family and friends back in the US need to be "physically intimidated" or they will become traitors??? And, the wife of the vice-president agrees with this?
How about this one ""My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." (Contrary to what you mentioned earlier, the 2nd biggest terrorist threat in the US is, BY FAR, far-right wingers like McVeigh, the Ayran Nations, the KKK and various militia groups, not stupid animal-rights kids). Here Coulter, for example, is advocating that terrorism be applied to journalists whom she doesn't agree with. How's that for some straight-up fascism?
Here's another good one (Coulter's response to reading Sean Hannity's book): "Perplexingly, he writes: "The vast majority of liberals are good, sincere, well-meaning people." This cheery bonhomie is beginning to sound like the mantra about the "vast majority" of Muslims being peaceful and has produced the same good results. I think it's time to drop the infernal nonsense about liberals being well-intentioned but misguided. In the spirit of Hannityesque magnanimity, I will say that there is only one thing wrong with liberals: They're no good."
Who is sounding more like a Nazi here? Here, all liberals (and all Muslims) are just plain "bad." Not liberalism, not certain left-wing leaders, but all liberals, period.
I'm sorry, but I do a LOT of reading from the left, right, center, libertarian, you name it, and I do not find this kind of hate coming from the American left. On the contrary, it comes from the right. And, I'm quoting someone who sells millions of books--one of the most popular authors in the US, not some fringe nutball (OK, so Coulter IS a nutball, but not at all fringe).
Again, I wish to stress this (showing the kind of nuance that Coulter, and you for that matter sadly lack) that MOST conservatives don't agree with Coulter. But, her popularity alone should give sufficient witness that your statements equating left-wingers with Nazis is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.
- Dyolf - 09-04-2007 08:52 AM
This thread has esscelated out of all proportion. What happened to rights and wrongs of fox-hunting?
Talk about "off-topic", sheeesh. :O
- cevor - 09-04-2007 09:29 AM
yea! fox hunting is baad..mkay? don't hunt foxes mkay? then you'd be baad mkay?
- Dyolf - 09-04-2007 03:41 PM
cevor Wrote:yea! fox hunting is baad..mkay? don't hunt foxes mkay? then you'd be baad mkay?Ok, ok - stop taking the piss :D mkay?
- chromeboomerang - 09-04-2007 09:00 PM
& have heard Nazi=rightwing before, For what it's worth, Stalin was leftwing & was a much more large scale killer than Hitler was.
Ah yes, Coulter. I could well imagine she was joking like she often does. It's easy to take something out of context. I dunno what she actually said or meant, but I have my suspicions short of actually hearing it straight from the horses mouth.
I am not a big follower of talk radio & these cats. I'm Progressive Libertarian anyways. Neither party ever did what it said it would. Libs expanded the amount of people on welfare thereby doubling the problem. Republicans never shrunk the government or got rid of the IRS. Time to move on I say.
I would disagree on the Conservatives hate more again by quoting the charity figures, they obviously care more than left oriented persons by virtue of that alone.
& Take Al Franken, he's just a mud flinger. & I work on major Universities & get to see & hear the current thinking & hear much more invective from Liberals any day of the week compared to Conservatives.
Sound familiar? Who spews hate against religious minorities, ethnic minorities, left-wingers and homosexuals today? Liberals? Uh, no, that would be conservatives.
The word hate again is very misused. If one disagrees with homoseuality, one is labelled a "hate" person. This is very common & a clear example of what I'm talking about. Feeling differently about something does not automatically equate to hate. Many Chinese people & even many in other countries follow Taoism, which teaches the divine union of opposites expressed in the Yin/Yang symbol. They believe the pathway to wholeness is achieved by following this blending of the 2 energies. Which is not in harmony with same sex philosophy. Does this mean they are "hate" people? Certainly not. Just their "view" of life.
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1188969160
- mabewa - 09-05-2007 05:23 PM
I don't equate people who disagree with homosexuality with hate. As a heterosexual, I personally find homosexuality rather odd and distasteful... but that is totally my personal point of view, and I don't let it affect my basic point of view that gay people deserve fair and equal treatment, just like anybody else.
No, I'm talking about real hate here. For example, people who picket the funerals of gay people with signs sayings "God Hates Fags." I'm talking about members of the Aryan nations who very nearly succeeded in a plan to bomb gay clubs in Seattle and Portland--an act that would have killed hundreds of people, including personal friends of mine. I'm talking about gay bashing--randomly attacking people and sometimes killling people who are gay or who appear to be gay. I'm talking about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blaming gays (along with liberals, feminists, etc.) for 911. I'm talking about the 1996 Republican candidate for governor, Ellen Craswell, who was an unapologetic religious fundamentalist. One of her chief advisors had advocated that gays be deported or sent to concentration camps.
Now, THAT'S hate... and barely different from Hitler, either. Allen Craswell ended up getting 40% of the vote in "liberal" Washington State. The America I believe in is better than that.
At the risk of sounding repetitious, I do know that most conservatives do not harbor this kind of hate. But, it is still safe to say that this kind of hate comes primarily from the right-wing. For example, when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot" (a genuinely hateful word, whether used in jest or not), she was immediately condemned by conservatives like Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain. Because of this, if I'm debating this kind of issue, I never make assumptions about what individual conservatives believe, and if I hear left-wingers make generalizations like "all conservatives are anti-gay" I usually explain to them that they are completely wrong.
However, this is how I personally feel: I think that left-wing Americans have taken an enormous amount of crap for a long time: told that we are not real Americans, having our patriotism, our loyalty, our very legitimacy as Americans questioned. In my personal experience, left-wing Americans often have a problem with conservative politicians and conservatism itself, but we are much more sympathetic to conservatives as human beings. I know conservatives with similar points of view, but as I mention above, there is a whole cottage industry of people who are constantly attacking "liberals" as un-American. I've often heard my moderate and libertarian friends comment that there is much more hate from the right to the left than vice-versa. Now, that's all from my perspective, and I could be wrong--but I honestly don't think I am.
Anyway, my personal point of view is that, as a genuine "liberal" (which doesn't necessarily equate with "left-wing" at all), I enormously value political pluralism. I wouldn't want to see an America without conservatives... or without moderates, libertarians or anarchists either. I may disagree with people, but I don't want to see them disappear, and I don't think that ANY political group has all the answers on complex issues like the economy, education, social problems, etc.
The reason why I originally took you to task for bringing the whole "liberal" thing into this discussion is that I was defending hunting (at least, hunting for one's food), and this is a normal point of view for millions of liberal Americans. I've lived in NE New Mexico and the Puget Sound area of Washington States, and both of those areas are full of left-wingers and hunters... and very often left-wing hunters. I'm a gun owner and don't consider myself to be pro gun-control (unless you count things like background checks and the Brady Bill, which the vast majority of Americans support). Some of my fellow liberals support severe gun control or are anti-hunting? Granted, and I don't let a political label get in the way of openly disagreeing with them.
Anyway, I feel strongly that if you care about any particular issue, then you should welcome collaboration with people of any reasonable political persuasion--to assume that they disagree with you based on their politics is just to alienate potential allies.
- chromeboomerang - 09-06-2007 02:54 PM
- mabewa - 09-06-2007 05:05 PM
- chromeboomerang - 09-07-2007 04:14 PM
When exactly did I say that I was for gun control? In case you somehow have missed this from my previous posts: I am a gun owner and a hunter.
Somehow I guessed you would have a nice message here for me today, I must be psychic. Um, wasn't referring to you Mab. As I stated earlier, you aren't the average Liberal. My family has 4 Liberals in it. They follow more the pattern I have forwarded. You may be a Maverick sort of Liberal, but again it is my experience that most follow what I have forwarded, certainly the politicians.
It's a movie ABOUT guns, but he doesn't take the simplistic "more guns = more crime" point of view that many in the gun control movement take. He point out that, for example, Canada has a high rate of gun ownership, but much lower murder rates than the US does.
Moore's movie entirely missed the salient most important point about Columbine, which is.. the shooters were drug users, & coming off of heavy drugs & suffering the side effects. In fact EVERY shooter in recent US school shootings were on psychiatric drugs, or coming off of them. Coincides with the many people who have committed suicide on Zoloft & Prozac etc.
http://www.laleva.org/eng....rs.html
http://psychdata.blogspot.com/2007....re.html
Edited By chromeboomerang on 1189211192
RE: roger waters hobby - hypocrite? - swesolid - 02-22-2012 01:15 PM
I'm really not that concerned about foxes as some of you might be. Although I have to say I find it utterly unnecessary to kill animals for the fun of it rather then for the meat. And I'm pretty sure fox aint that tasty.
I haven't had the chance to read through the entire thread so maby some1 mentioned this before me. I have always looked up to Rogers and thought of him with the most respect. I adore him for his kindness and for his lives work as a front figure in the fight of equality. When that sob moves to the Hamptons and buys himself and Island for $16 million dollar on which he plans to build a retreat for famous people. That my friends is hypocrisy. I know that Roger do a lot of good things. But it is not too hard for a man with all the money in the world to look like he's a saint sharing some. You live as you learn and frankly that's the exact opposite to what he is doing. I honor a man who might not have so much to give but till does it, rather then someone with infinite amount of money sharing a 1/1000 of a % on the needing, making big headlines. Even the christians knew that when you do good, you do it quiet. You don't go around bragging about it.
I might be looked upon as somewhat of an asshole but I really looked up to this man so much. And I feel let down.
Peace out everyone and pleas excuse me for my english, it's not native :P