A surpirse only to self-centered twits

[Bob Riebe]

Anyone who is surprised by this is either deliberately ignorant, or so full of arrogant prejudice the one thinks the one's spitting in the Ocean causes a drastic change.

http://psychoeducation.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/bias-within-social-science/

It is being discussed on NPR right now and is very interesting.
Bob
PS- If the Republicans vote to de-fund, NPR, it gives truth to claims too many Repulicans are among the self-centered twits.
They are voting right now, I think.

[Rollo]

By drowning out the voice of NPR, or severing its windpipe entirely, how much more will bigger and friendlier voices to the Republicans cause be able to be heard?

How many more steps towards becoming Orwell's Oceania in "1984" would you like to take?

[Roamy]

I would rather have the Rev James Manning instead of the NPR

[anthonyvop]

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC all seem to be able to spread the gospel of the left and not need to waste my Tax Dollars.....So why do we need NPR?

[Retro Formula 1]

I suppose the type of people that would choose this type of vocation would generally be left of centre so it's not surprising in the least. It would be interesting if they had to start recruiting right wing members to address the imbalance through a process of positive discrimination :devil:

I should imagine that the same would happen as happens on here. The right wing, gun toting, look after themselves lot will argue tooth and nail with the looney left, bleeding heart, Daily Mail hating bunch of airy fairies and nothing ever gets resolved.

Personally, I take encouragement in being condemned by both sides. This leads me to deduce that I'm pretty central which IMHO is a balanced place to be. :D

[ArrowsFA1]

The right wing, gun toting, look after themselves lot...
the looney left, bleeding heart, Daily Mail hating bunch of airy fairies...
Dare I suggest that someone sat in the centre of the political spectrum might be rather more balanced in their descriptions of either side :p :

[Retro Formula 1]

Dare I suggest that someone sat in the centre of the political spectrum might be rather more balanced in their descriptions of either side :p :


Balance by it's definition must be the the centre of 2 extreems. :D

[billiaml]

As a friend of public radio, I'd be more interested in knowing whether or not the members of congress support NPR out of their own pockets than whether or not they're in favor of Federal Funding of it.

Realistically speaking, our government has been spending more money than it takes in for a long time and, since that can't go on indefinitely, cuts have to be made somewhere. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see whether or not they "put their money where their mouths are" or they're just interested in spending our tax $$'s to buy more votes.

[Rollo]

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC all seem to be able to spread the gospel of the left and not need to waste my Tax Dollars.....So why do we need NPR?

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC are all commercial entities; as such their prime motivator is the need to turn a profit for their private shareholders. That in itself is a rightist concept.

Public Broadcasting generally and Public Radio in particular isn't driven by the need to turn profits. As such, Public Broadcasters can afford to be not only far more adventurous in their content, but because they also need to be seen as independent they tend to play far less in the political-party slanging match and actually report more objectively on the issues themselves.
Also, on the whole Public Broadcasters produce far more documentaries and educational programming than commercial stations do. It also generally is of a higher quality. So much so, that as far as radio goes, NPR is really the only American radio network that exports content.


Realistically speaking, our government has been spending more money than it takes in for a long time and, since that can't go on indefinitely, cuts have to be made somewhere. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see whether or not they "put their money where their mouths are" or they're just interested in spending our tax $$'s to buy more votes.

NPR itself actually made $18.9 million. Oops.

The Dept of Defence, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are the three biggest pulls on the US Budget. All of which could be cut drastically. The US has been fighting pointless wars for the last decade.
The other big option is to increase taxes, and to simplify the existing tax regime. Having 51 different sets of tax code doesn’t help much.

[anthonyvop]

but because they also need to be seen as independent they tend to play far less in the political-party slanging match and actually report more objectively on the issues themselves.

Have you watched or listened to Public Television or NPR? Can you name me one news/politics show that is even middle of the road let alone Right wing?



Also, on the whole Public Broadcasters produce far more documentaries and educational programming than commercial stations do. It also generally is of a higher quality. So much so, that as far as radio goes, NPR is really the only American radio network that exports content.

Really?
I have Discovery, History Channel, History International, Science, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, Green, Current and Animal Planet and they are all for profit and seem to have no problem cranking out Documentaries.

[Rollo]

Have you watched or listened to Public Television or NPR? Can you name me one news/politics show that is even middle of the road let alone Right wing?

Morning Edition and All Things Considered are both what the rest of the world would consider to be centrist. They even have a domestic audience of about 13 million people, which puts them at no.2 and 3 behind The Rush Limbaugh Show for audience numbers.



I have Discovery, History Channel, History International, Science, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, Green, Current and Animal Planet and they are all for profit and seem to have no problem cranking out Documentaries.

The National Geographic Society is a non-profit organisation. Grant that Discovery and AETN are for profit, but collectively they all turn out less than the BBC, DW and the ABC do.

[billiaml]

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC are all commercial entities; as such their prime motivator is the need to turn a profit for their private shareholders. That in itself is a rightist concept.

Public Broadcasting generally and Public Radio in particular isn't driven by the need to turn profits. As such, Public Broadcasters can afford to be not only far more adventurous in their content, but because they also need to be seen as independent they tend to play far less in the political-party slanging match and actually report more objectively on the issues themselves.
Also, on the whole Public Broadcasters produce far more documentaries and educational programming than commercial stations do. It also generally is of a higher quality. So much so, that as far as radio goes, NPR is really the only American radio network that exports content.



NPR itself actually made $18.9 million. Oops.

The Dept of Defence, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are the three biggest pulls on the US Budget. All of which could be cut drastically. The US has been fighting pointless wars for the last decade.
The other big option is to increase taxes, and to simplify the existing tax regime. Having 51 different sets of tax code doesn’t help much.

I obviously need more info re: their sources & uses of funds, then. Since they seem to be taking in more money than they're spending, if I were them, I'm not sure how heartbroken I'd be about the loss of Federal funding -- and the red tape that usually accompanies it.

As far as our simplifying our tax code is concerned, I don't see that happening. Too many lawyers in Congress for that to happen.

[BDunnell]

Balance by it's definition must be the the centre of 2 extreems. :D

Those of us — me, mainly — who, at least in part, decide whether or not a comment is worth taking into consideration by reference to spelling and grammar, and who consider those who are unable to achieve a decent standard in either even in a brief post hard to take seriously, will be forgiven for thinking that your sentiments would be expressed more effectively without the unnecessary inverted comma and the mis-spelled 'extremes'.

[BDunnell]

Have you watched or listened to Public Television or NPR? Can you name me one news/politics show that is even middle of the road let alone Right wing?

Yes, I have, and regularly. Much of their output is spectacularly worthy — those of us who are inveterate (look it up) enthusiasts of the BBC might even say dull — and in no way worthy of being described as biased or even interesting.

[BDunnell]

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC all seem to be able to spread the gospel of the left and not need to waste my Tax Dollars.....So why do we need NPR?

Choice?

[BDunnell]

PS- If the Republicans vote to de-fund, NPR, it gives truth to claims too many Repulicans are among the self-centered twits.
They are voting right now, I think.

One of the few things you have ever posted I have agreed wholeheartedly with.

[glauistean]

Which of the shows on the channels you attribute as being left and are damaging(sic) to your mind do you know of that are on the channels you list?

Do you go to FOX for your "Fair and Balanced" point of view? Is it true they actually sued someone for using the term?

Fox news is by the way the channel most watched by the least educated. Something like playing to the lowest denominator. Do you watch FOX, ahem, News?

As was stated in my home country, the lack of respect shown to your President Obama by Bill O'Reilly who apparently interrupted the President constantly and showed absolute disrespect

to the office President Obama holds. Is it because he is black or is it because he is a Democrat that O'Reilly acted as reported. I will reserve my opinion until I actually view the interview.

[anthonyvop]

Morning Edition and All Things Considered are both what the rest of the world would consider to be centrist.

Morning Edition and All things considered are extreme left-wing...That is irrefutable. NPR is a U.S. radio network partially funded by the U.S. government. so what euro-weenies think is immaterial.




The National Geographic Society is a non-profit organisation. Grant that Discovery and AETN are for profit, but collectively they all turn out less than the BBC, DW and the ABC do.

We are discussing PBS and NPR. Both funded by the U.S. Government.

Nat Geo Channel is a for-profit Joint Venture with Fox Networks.....

The fact is that despite what you think the Vast Majority of documentaries in the U.S.A are created and produced networks that are For Profit.

BTW BBC America(The US BBC Channel) sell advertising space.

[anthonyvop]

Choice?

What Choice? NPR and PBS are just as left wing as the others. If you truly wanted choice provided by the government then you would welcome a Libertarian NPR/PBS.

The Fact is there is no major media network in the USA that could be considered right-wing. Fox is centrist with a few right wing commentators(Hannity and Cavuto) and many populist (O'Reily, VanSustern and Beck) and even a Left winger(Shepard Smith)

The only Network that could be considered Right-Wing/Conservative would be CNBC but that is a business network.

[Rollo]

What Choice? NPR and PBS are just as left wing as the others. If you truly wanted choice provided by the government then you would welcome a Libertarian NPR/PBS.

Libertarianism eh? Please define this for us. Are you talking about Libertarianism in a minarchist or anarchist sense. The two instances are very different and appear quite a way apart on the Political Compass.

[ArrowsFA1]

Fox is centrist with a few right wing commentators(Hannity and Cavuto) and many populist (O'Reily, VanSustern and Beck) and even a Left winger(Shepard Smith).
You have to be a fair way along the right wing scale on the political spectrum to consider Fox as being "centrist".

As for Beck being "populist":
Between November and the first three weeks of January, Glenn Beck has lost, on average, nearly 500,000 viewers. Or put another way, the days of Glenn Beck drawing three million viewers are long gone. And they’re never coming back...consider the mountain of media attention Beck basked in during the last twelve months and how he’s supposed to be the point person for a grassroots American movement. And then realize his audience is down 50% from where it was 12 months ago (source (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101270008))

[BDunnell]

Morning Edition and All things considered are extreme left-wing...That is irrefutable.

Please give some specific examples, with quotes from their output, that seek to prove your point.


NPR is a U.S. radio network partially funded by the U.S. government. so what euro-weenies think is immaterial.

It is broadcast in Europe and has at least one European subsidiary, so what we think does have some relevance.



The fact is that despite what you think the Vast Majority of documentaries in the U.S.A are created and produced networks that are For Profit.

Why the unnecessary capital letters?

[BDunnell]

What Choice? NPR and PBS are just as left wing as the others. If you truly wanted choice provided by the government then you would welcome a Libertarian NPR/PBS.

The Fact is there is no major media network in the USA that could be considered right-wing. Fox is centrist with a few right wing commentators(Hannity and Cavuto) and many populist (O'Reily, VanSustern and Beck) and even a Left winger(Shepard Smith)

The only Network that could be considered Right-Wing/Conservative would be CNBC but that is a business network.

This is some of the biggest nonsense I have read on these boards since you last made these tiresome and untrue assertions, which prove nothing other than how absurdly skewed your political compass is.

[Dave B]

An example of Fox's impartiality at work:
http://m.boingboing.net/2011/02/16/fox-news-caught-faki.html

[Bob Riebe]

Dare I suggest that someone sat in the centre of the political spectrum might be rather more balanced in their descriptions of either side :p :One who sits in the center can smuggly pooint fingers at either side whilst bathing in copious amounts of self-righteous prejudice.

[Bob Riebe]

You have to be a fair way along the right wing scale on the political spectrum to consider Fox as being "centrist".

No one can only has to be extremely left leaning to think thy are not.
Hannity is the chattering equivalent of Carville. Both should shut-up, or get a show where they are co-hosts and one would get sixty minutes of unintelligible noise.

Beck is now so full of him-self, what he has to say is lost in self-anointing gibberish.
Matthews on MSNBC is not far behind.

[Bob Riebe]

An example of Fox's impartiality at work:
http://m.boingboing.net/2011/02/16/fox-news-caught-faki.html
That proves absolutely nothing.

[BDunnell]

One who sits in the center can smuggly pooint fingers at either side whilst bathing in copious amounts of self-righteous prejudice.

So only left and right have any relevance, in your opinion?

The certainty with which you express your opinions — as though no-one would ever, in a million years, accuse you of 'pointing fingers' (note spelling correction) 'whilst bathing in copious amounts of self-righteous prejudice' — is, shall we say, interesting.

[Bob Riebe]

So only left and right have any relevance, in your opinion?

The certainty with which you express your opinions — as though no-one would ever, in a million years, accuse you of 'pointing fingers' (note spelling correction) 'whilst bathing in copious amounts of self-righteous prejudice' — is, shall we say, interesting.Ooh i pooint, but i pooint in the direction of the one/s I feel are in error, which may be either direction, but usually is not, whhilst taking no satisfaction of supposedly being superior to those I feel in error.

[ArrowsFA1]

No one can only has to be extremely left leaning to think thy are not.
:confused:

Let's put it this way; if you agree with Fox's stance then you're likely to see them as being "centrist".

[BDunnell]

Ooh i pooint, but i pooint in the direction of the one/s I feel are in error, which may be either direction, but usually is not, whhilst taking no satisfaction of supposedly being superior to those I feel in error.

Er, pardon? I genuinely don't understand this post.

[Bob Riebe]

Er, pardon? I genuinely don't understand this post.Read some earlier posts and thee light bulb will go on.

[Rollo]

Maybe this is of note:
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/bbc-serbia-service-says-goodbye-with-radio-show-svet-u-2
The Serbian-language section of the BBC World Service ended on Friday, leaving some listeners feeling bereft.
"'Svet u 2" was Serbia's only window on the world and it made my days make sense," lamented 57-year-old Irena Lacmanovic, grieved to imagine that her favourite radio show was gone forever.

I was just listening to DW commenting on the BBC's decision to cut several foreign language services; the Serbian service being just one of them to be cut.
People on the streets of Belgrade reported that during the collapse of Yugoslavia that the BBC was the only reliable source of news that was on air at all.

What does this have to do with NPR? The point being that NPR is a voice for American interests overseas. To be totally honest, CBS, NBC, FOX etc don't give a rip about promoting US interests, yet NPR which has its source of funding in part from the government has an economic mandate to do so.
http://www.npr.org/worldwide/

[anthonyvop]

This is some of the biggest nonsense I have read on these boards since you last made these tiresome and untrue assertions, which prove nothing other than how absurdly skewed your political compass is.

Typical of the ultra left....Cannot debate the facts so resort to personal insults.

[BDunnell]

Typical of the ultra left....Cannot debate the facts so resort to personal insults.

The fact that I am 'ultra-left' to you is absolutely indicative of what you say. I am not in any way 'ultra-left', and, with respect, I think I know myself better than you do.

[anthonyvop]

The fact that I am 'ultra-left' to you is absolutely indicative of what you say. I am not in any way 'ultra-left', and, with respect, I think I know myself better than you do.

Well you don't believe in Freedom of Speech, Choice, or basic property rights........so yes you are ULTRA LIBERAL.

[BDunnell]

Well you don't believe in Freedom of Speech, Choice, or basic property rights........so yes you are ULTRA LIBERAL.

Tony, I do believe in freedom of speech, choice and basic property rights. To say I do not is simply untrue, and I would ask you to kindly take back your comment.

[Rollo]

Well you don't believe in Freedom of Speech, Choice, or basic property rights........so yes you are ULTRA LIBERAL.

Someone who doesn't believe in Freedom of Speech, Choice, or basic property rights wouldn't by definition be "liberal" by any sense of either the word, or any of the clasical definitions in economics.

Someone who doesn't believe in Freedom of Speech, Choice, or basic property rights would be an Authoritarianist. That could either be control by the government, the monarchy or perhaps the church. In which case you're looking at either Totalitarianism, Enlightened Absolutism or perhaps an extreme Theocratist; certainly not a "liberal".

[anthonyvop]

Tony, I do believe in freedom of speech, choice and basic property rights. To say I do not is simply untrue, and I would ask you to kindly take back your comment.


No you don't
You repeatedly call for the silencing of those who disagree with you or who espouse what YOU consider hate speech.
You are against the PRIVATE ownership of firearms.
And your hatred of the free market is a perfect example of how you are against the freedom of CHOICE!!

[anthonyvop]

Someone who doesn't believe in Freedom of Speech, Choice, or basic property rights wouldn't by definition be "liberal" by any sense of either the word, or any of the clasical definitions in economics.

Someone who doesn't believe in Freedom of Speech, Choice, or basic property rights would be an Authoritarianist. That could either be control by the government, the monarchy or perhaps the church. In which case you're looking at either Totalitarianism, Enlightened Absolutism or perhaps an extreme Theocratist; certainly not a "liberal".

Sorry Rollo but for the past 100 years it has been mostly the left who wants to deny people of their rights. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, Mugabe.....The list goes on and on. Even today it is the left who constantly want to create more and more regulation to control the people.

It is the Liberal's basic nature. They actually believe they know how you should live than you do.

"Sorry Rollo but for the past 100 years it has been mostly the left who wants to deny people of their rights. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, Mugabe.....The list goes on and on. Even today it is the left who constantly want to create more and more regulation to control the people.
It is the Liberal's basic nature. They actually believe they know how you should live than you do."

I'm sure as I post and get used to this place I will learn how to use all the little tricks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, I read that the United States is lagging behind all of the developed countries

when it comes to education.

Today, I joined here last night :) and started to read some of the posts. As with many


ideas and ideals there is conflict. I see that on blogs here on my tiny island as I peruse

the sites in English and Gaelic whenever I can find them and I must say that I become

fascinated with the pure ignorance of some and wonder about what is going to happen to


the world if some of the people that post on these blogs ever attained any type of

power.

Back to the point on education and the US.Besides a flag on a post how does one know

where another poster is from?

I am from Europe and live as I study on Iona.

I saw the post above by Anthonyprop. If I could chat privately with him I could ask

questions directly and privately. Privacy is important to me but ignorance is not bliss so I

am also curious. St. Colm Cille would not like too much of an invasion of his privacy (I

jest).

Well, to the point. Anthonyvop has posted and made a very large all encompassing

statement of the political ideals of so many despots and put them all into one basket or

as Anthonyvop says that they are lefty.

First Anthonyvop, I hope you are not an American as my Father, Great Grandfather and

Grandmother, my three uncles and some cousins were all born in the great United

States.

Anthonyvop, to state that there is a parallel between so much that is wrong in the world

today is because of the left is completely idiotic and to then state that the various

despots you mentioned that caused so much of the dire problems enacted against the

people of the world is very troubling due to it's inaccuracy and it's total ignorance. I am

willing to believe that the reason Anthony has lumped all those people together is

because he is inclined to react to what he hears and sees rather than reads.

Anthonyvop, any man with a myopia of education would know and studied and just from

intelligent observation that Hitler was a far right wing fascist. In fact, there is no such

thing as a left wing fascist. It never ceases to amaze me that people lable Hitler a

left-winger because of the name of the Nazi Party and that being their only argument.

I am not going to try to educate him on that alone. He is correct about the EXTREME

LEFT when he mentions Stalin and Lenin. Pol Pot and Mao Tse - tung were different in

their pure communism and their desire to "re-educate"

I doubt if you would put Tony Blair in with any of these latter few. I also would not

believe you put George Bush in with Hitler because they were both right of centre. It is

the extremity that counts.

Finally, how could you possibly say that it was left wing leaders that caused most of the

horrors of the past 100 years?

Anthony, you have Mugabe as a left winger. Do you know who he is? You do know he

toppled a white right wing politician but he is and never has been a left wing or as so

many equate left wing people a "liberal"

You named so many people and decried that they are leftist communists or at least that

is the impression I got from reading it and then disgusted with your lack of intellectual

curiosity.

World War II, El Salvador, Chile, Peru, Vietnam, Balkan Islands, Italy (El Doce ,Mussolini,)Afghanistan under the Taliban, Khomeini Al-Aassad,Franco,Bokassa, Nixon,Effrain Rios,Idi Amin, Khan, PapaDoc Duvalier,Kambanda, Leopold (off by 2 years) Tojo,Enver and I'll just finish with all the right wing leaders and dictators of the Balkans whom you should know.

Anythony, please don't be so rash to lable your fellow man with a political stance he may

not have but, that you despise. That alone is quite obvious since you mention people of

a left wing disposition as being absolute and utter murderers. To my way of thinking a

person with liberal left way of thinking is quite the opposite to what you seem to believe.

If that is the case and you believe the left is so murderous then it would fall to the

conclusion that you are a pacifist and one of those that were you there (were you) at

Penn State protesting the war in Vietnam and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I base that assumption purely on the basis of your own assertion and your very words.

[anthonyvop]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, I read that the United States is lagging behind all of the developed countries

when it comes to education.

Today, I joined here last night :) and started to read some of the posts. As with many


ideas and ideals there is conflict. I see that on blogs here on my tiny island as I peruse

the sites in English and Gaelic whenever I can find them and I must say that I become

fascinated with the pure ignorance of some and wonder about what is going to happen to
....
.
.
.


a left wing disposition as being absolute and utter murderers. To my way of thinking a

person with liberal left way of thinking is quite the opposite to what you seem to believe.

If that is the case and you believe the left is so murderous then it would fall to the

conclusion that you are a pacifist and one of those that were you there (were you) at

Penn State protesting the war in Vietnam and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I base that assumption purely on the basis of your own assertion and your very words.

You really believe all that stuff. Hitler and the Nazi's weren't left wing? Nixon and the Taliban right wing?

Wow.........Really? Wow?

[BDunnell]

You really believe all that stuff. Hitler and the Nazi's weren't left wing? Nixon and the Taliban right wing?

Wow.........Really? Wow?

Well, you went on yesterday about me not believing in freedom of speech, property rights and so on as though you know better than I do what my own political views are. On all those points, you were completely and utterly wrong, yet not even polite enough to retract your statements when I pointed out how untrue they were. I would therefore conclude that your notions of where people stand on the political spectrum are all equally fallacious.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Hitler wasn't particularly to the right or left. He was an authoritarian.

[anthonyvop]

Well, you went on yesterday about me not believing in freedom of speech, property rights and so on as though you know better than I do what my own political views are. On all those points, you were completely and utterly wrong, yet not even polite enough to retract your statements when I pointed out how untrue they were. I would therefore conclude that your notions of where people stand on the political spectrum are all equally fallacious.

You have more than a few times shown everyone here your views.

You are against freedom of speech
You are against property rights
And you are against freedom of choice.

I stand by my statement.

[BDunnell]

You have more than a few times shown everyone here your views.

You are against freedom of speech
You are against property rights
And you are against freedom of choice.

I stand by my statement.

So you genuinely think that you know me and my views better than I do myself?

[anthonyvop]

Hitler wasn't particularly to the right or left. He was an authoritarian.


Authoritarian though he was he also believed in the government management of the economy, ranted against the evils of capitalism and put the State above the individual....All Left-Wing talking points.

[Rollo]

Authoritarian though he was he also believed in the government management of the economy, ranted against the evils of capitalism and put the State above the individual....All Left-Wing talking points.

He also privatised the banking system, the steel industry, DB, and set about dismantling trade unions. That sort of policy mix would have put him squarely within the Thatcher Tory Government.
You're not seriously suggesting that any of that is Left-Wing are you?

Hitler and Stalin would have seen eye to eye on an Authoritarian from but not in an economic sense.

[anthonyvop]

So you genuinely think that you know me and my views better than I do myself?


Yes

[anthonyvop]

He also privatised the banking system, the steel industry, DB, and set about dismantling trade unions. That sort of policy mix would have put him squarely within the Thatcher Tory Government.
You're not seriously suggesting that any of that is Left-Wing are you?

Hitler and Stalin would have seen eye to eye on an Authoritarian from but not in an economic sense.

Hitler privatized the banks and steel industry by giving them to political cronies and then told them exactly what they were going to do.....and you better believe the bankers and steel mill "Owners" did exactly what he said.

He dismantled "Private" trade unions and replaced it with the Party.

Hitler was extreme left wing....Keep trying to name one issue in which he wasn't...maybe you will get lucky.

[Rollo]

What do you define Left and Right wing as then?

[Roamy]

Someone who doesn't believe in Freedom of Speech, Choice, or basic property rights wouldn't by definition be "liberal" by any sense of either the word, or any of the clasical definitions in economics.

Someone who doesn't believe in Freedom of Speech, Choice, or basic property rights would be an Authoritarianist. That could either be control by the government, the monarchy or perhaps the church. In which case you're looking at either Totalitarianism, Enlightened Absolutism or perhaps an extreme Theocratist; certainly not a "liberal".

WOW Rollo this sounds like a whole group of people I should be looking to shoot !

[Roamy]

You really believe all that stuff. Hitler and the Nazi's weren't left wing? Nixon and the Taliban right wing?

Wow.........Really? Wow?

I don't know about that but if she keeps posting she could at least send me some batteries for my mouse!!

[BDunnell]

Yes

Seriously now? Even though we have never had the pleasure of meeting and all you know of me is through postings on an internet forum, you think you know more about me and my views than I do? Honestly? If so — wow.

[pino]

Quit personal comments/insults or I will close this thread too !

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Hitler wasn't particularly to the right or left. He was an authoritarian.

He was totalitarian, along with Stalin, not authoritarian. Authoritarian is a word I'd rather use to describe Franco's rule, for instance.

Right and left are just words. They mean different things in different eras and different countries. The only reason to insist using them regardless of context is to pursue your political goals and to associate your political opponents with figures like Hitler or Stalin.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think funding the NPR isn't a bad thing. I in my travels spent a lot of time surfing the radio when in the US. NPR always had something going on where I could listen, get mad or agree and move on. They are no better or worse for being of the left than the CBC or BBC. I know what I am getting, just like any other conservative or libertarian does when I listen. The fact is, government radio is always left of center. Not sure why that should be or is, except that it is. The reality is, conservative radio is a profit maker because people like to listen to it in great numbers. NPR should balance out its listening base with a few right of center people who have something to say that isn't just for show.

Sadly though, most of the people producing public radio think anyone who doesn't agree with them is a right wing crank, and some of these people think socialism is a great idea.....

No, after listening to public radio up here for 5 hours last night, I can honestly say I don't mind it being around...because one must listen to these people if for no other reason than to realize just how loony and out of touch they can be at times. Then when you think all hope is lost, they put on something interesting......

It is different....and there is a place for it.