[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Reasonable and educated people don't try to push moral based abstinence only education into the public school system despite it being an abject failure, while fighting vehemently against anything to the contrary, like education on safe sex.

There is no "extremist interpretation" needed. She's made her views plenty well known in several books and countless radio and television spots.

Actually, I couldn't care less if she holds the mentally retarded social views she does, that's her business. When she attempts to enforce those views through the public school system, then we have a problem.

I gather from one of your other posts that you are about 23 years old. In about 25 years, you'll understand why many parents are more concerned about "progressive" social views being forced on the public school system than Laura Ingraham's.

I don't agree with her on every point, but her views are no less valid than yours and are every bit as worthy of being heard.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

Help us out here, GS. If you don't watch TV, how have you seen how Laura Ingraham looks on TV?

Now I'm doing my best, though with some difficulty, not to interpret as a broad brush put down of people in the Midwest. If that is not the impression you want to leave, I think you should explain more clearly and perhaps also explain how your comment relates to the question asked.

Only watch TV when I go out to restaurants and bars

Having a political debate on individual issues focusing on semantics and nuance is not a forte for many that live in the Plains/Midwest based on personal experience. I think many just don't like conflict in general, and just do not debate issues as much as other places- particularly outside of metro areas.

[marmom]

Laura Ingraham and her peers (Rush Limbaugh, Kieth Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, etc) are entertainers. It behooves them (their ratings, book sales, and bank accounts) to be provocative, dogmatic, and extreme on their shows. The mainstream media in this country has evolved into sensationalism and what in my opinion is yellow journalism bordering on propaganda (as determined by the corporate giants who own the tv/radio stations). I am suspicious of anyone who follows any one of these people in blind faith. They are however very entertaining at times .

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by marmom

Laura Ingraham and her peers (Rush Limbaugh, Kieth Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, etc) are entertainers. It behooves them (their ratings, book sales, and bank accounts) to be provocative, dogmatic, and extreme on their shows. The mainstream media in this country has evolved into sensationalism and what in my opinion is yellow journalism bordering on propaganda (as determined by the corporate giants who own the tv/radio stations). I am suspicious of anyone who follows any one of these people in blind faith. They are however very entertaining at times .

So am I, but that is not to say that each and every one of them hasn't made excellent in-depth presentations and arguments at times on various issues. I don't "follow" any of them, nor do I automatically dismiss what any of them have to say. A person who regularly samples a cross-section of the daily political commentary available today is a much better informed citizen than that of my high school days when the choice was between Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley.

It should be a given that today you must carefully filter everything presented through your own experience and common sense. But each of the "entertainers" you mentioned has something worthwhile to say on one issue or another.

[billiefan2000]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

You mean when they'll bring on guests from both sides of the spectrum and allow the conservative, right leaning ones to state their views without issue but the liberal guests are attacked, interrupted and talked over? Laura Ingraham is famous for this and I personally watched her do it when she was interviewing two people from Wisconsin regarding their sex ed laws.

You realize Ingraham herself got her television start on MSNBC right? Joe Scarborough also hosts a show on there and he's a very staunch conservative.

yeah, but Joe Scarborough is a neutered conservative on MSNBC. when Ingraham was there at MSNBC, they werent the far-left network it is now.


bosco, I have asked this before and no one has ever given me a answer:

can you name me any conservative journalists or reporters at the omaha world herald

we know Josefine Loza and Michaela Saunders and Cindy Gonzalez and Leia Baez-Mendoza and Robert Nelson and Rainbow Rowell and Kevin Coffey are all liberal journalists at OWH.


I am asking cause I keep hearing the lie the OWH is "conservative" which it isnt and have yet to hear anyone name me 1 conservative reporter or journalist at the omaha world herald

[Calvinist]

I wouldn't have minded seeing her...didn't realize she was in town. I don't listen that much to her show...she tends to be more abrasive than I like...but her web site is great.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

I gather from one of your other posts that you are about 23 years old. In about 25 years, you'll understand why many parents are more concerned about "progressive" social views being forced on the public school system than Laura Ingraham's.

I don't agree with her on every point, but her views are no less valid than yours and are every bit as worthy of being heard.

What "progressive" social views? Safe sex education? Maybe if you consider anything that isn't God-fearing rhetoric to be "progressive".

And no, this is where you and so many others are mistaken. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't make it valid or worthy of being considered. Case in point is arguing for any faith based doctrine to brought into the public school system.

If Laura Ingraham can make an argument for promoting abstinence (not "abstinence only") by reaching for logic and fact instead of God and the Bible, then she can have a seat at the table. Until then she deserves nothing beyond being treated like the loon she is.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

What "progressive" social views? Safe sex education? Maybe if you consider anything that isn't God-fearing rhetoric to be "progressive".

And no, this is where you and so many others are mistaken. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't make it valid or worthy of being considered. Case in point is arguing for any faith based doctrine to brought into the public school system.

If Laura Ingraham can make an argument for promoting abstinence (not "abstinence only") by reaching for logic and fact instead of God and the Bible, then she can have a seat at the table. Until then she deserves nothing beyond being treated like the loon she is.

What exactly is wrong with "God and the Bible"? There are plenty of progressives that have such a phobia of God and the Bible that they will avoid any and every idea that remotely seems religious. Sometimes it's ok to have religous things.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

What exactly is wrong with "God and the Bible"? There are plenty of progressives that have such a phobia of God and the Bible that they will avoid any and every idea that remotely seems religious. Sometimes it's ok to have religous things.

Nothing is wrong with the bible and God until you start bringing it into the public school system.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Nothing is wrong with the bible and God until you start bringing it into the public school system.

I'm not suggesting we teach it in schools, but do you know that Child Evangelism Fellowship is in quite a few schools in Omaha? The SCOTUS decided that if other clubs can be in our schools, so can they.

Don't fear the Bible. There are worse things our kids could be reading.