Quinn: "Fairness is the opposite of freedom"
September 08, 2009 11:50 am ET
From the September 8 edition of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
Fox's Trotta savages Stephanopoulos over possible move to Good Morning America
November 22, 2009 2:45 pm ET -
Thomas claims about health care reform: "It is an outrage, it is a sham, euthanasia is coming."
November 22, 2009 1:47 pm ET -
-
-
-
MacDonald response to Hardy's statement that "the government invented ... the Internet": "No, Al Gore did"
November 21, 2009 11:48 am ET
-
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
by Simon Maloy - November 20, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
by Greg Lewis - November 20, 2009 -
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
by Jamison Foser - November 19, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
Wondering if theres any thing that can be said that has not been yet?
Goes to show us how just super stupid people can be.
i guess this is the new set of talking points for neo cons. quote Thomas Hobbs. forget the fact that the founding fathers referenced and hacked John Locke incessantly, they really meant to use Hobbs' play book.
truly sick these people are
Freedom: the quality or state of being free: as 1) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.
So, where exactly is the opposition between these two ideas? The definitions, supplied by onlineMerriam-Webster online seem quite clear. I suppose if you are prejudiced, you must admit you are not fair, but those weren't the two ideas Mr. Quinn listed as oppposed. Likewise, if you believe in making decisions for others, such as who they may and may not marry, you must admit you are not in favor of freedom. Once more, though, these are not the two ideas supposedly opposed to each other.
Anyone of a conservative bent who could clear this up?
Leftists = inequality of opportunity for identified groups, identified by expediency.
Conservatives = outcomes related to an individual's freedom to willingly act upon their own resources.
Leftists = outcomes are based upon 'fairness', equality of outcomes across identified groups as dictated by ruling committee or panel.
When leftists want fairness, they want to officate outcomes, whether in media, health care, or daily life of citizens. It is never universal and fairness is really related to equally shared misery among the citizenry, but not necessarily followed by the ruling elite.
To conservatives, there is plenty of unfairness in the world, but overcoming it has nothing to do with government fiat. It is addressed by the freedom of the individual to take the gifts they have and apply them to the resources available to them. Even a bi-racial kid, abandoned by his father, raised by his white grandparents, able to freely access opportunities for education and vocation found in this country, can accomplish great things that just a generation ago would have been unheard of.
"Fairness" would have created a person just able to work in the capacity that the officials of the state would have ordered.
"Freedom" enables the individual to go as far as his abilities will allow.
lift yourself up by your bootstraps, quit complaining about rich people and just become one, blah blah blah
You have got it backwards.
Karl Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority"
Define fairness as you see it and freedom in relation to fairness and choice, please.
Who are you quoting?
C'mon, just humor me.
Does the original Bill of Rights or do the Articles have anything to say about freedom or fairness? Are they individual or group rights?
The line is "to promote the general welfare". Look it up in your U.S.S. Constitution.
Freedom in fact, a chance to excel provides.
And I know that ubermench wants me to use progressive instead of leftists, so do so please!
if you came across someone who was homeless and they asked for a dollar. would you give them a dollar if it mean they could get a bite to eat and live for one more day?
its obvious the thought never crossed your mind that a person is homeless for any other reason than being a drunk.
you have failed miserably to prove your point.
Keep your dollar, fold it until it is all sharp corners, and stick it, proudconservative.
if you came across someone who was homeless and they asked for a dollar. would you give them a dollar if it mean they could get a bite to eat and live for one more day?
When using Conservative, one must use Progressive as a counter point.
When using Right-wing, one must use Left-wing
etc. etc.
Work finally picked up and I don't have the time to respond with a lengthy diatribe
~proudconservative
As I try to make sense of the meaning of what is fair, freedom, conservative and progressive. I have come to the conclusion that no matter what people say (like me), some people (like you) will just refuse to see life in any other method or reason.
So to start I would like to say your views as far as Conservative vs. Progressive ideologies is a bit lopsided.
To be a "Conservative" (and to label yourself as such) is an unwillingness to accept change. Things work fine the way they are and for goodness sake...do not alter the situation for any reason.
con-ser-va-tive
adjective
1 : preservative
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism.
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions :
On the other hand. To be a "Progressive" (and to label yourself as such) is the willingness to accept change. Thing may work fine, but lets make them work better and for goodness sake, lets make them work better for everyone
pro-gres-sive
adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress
b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities
c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : advancing
Now on to your question of where do progressives stand on freedom and fairness?
To answer I will say that Progressives strive to expand the very essence of freedom, while Conservatives do everything in their power to smother it.
I'll go right for the gut and bring up the ACLU. This is an organization which is considered a very Progressive one. They have, in spite of all the media attention and whoop-la, have done more ensure that there is a freedom of religion and speech in this country than any Conservative organization that I know of. Case in point:
2004 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
The jist is that there was an Act called "Child Online Protection Act" which was to protect children from dangerous porn and other "obscenities" on the internet kids might look at. The ACLU said that this Act was too overbroad and the SCOTUS agreed and stated that this Act violated one's freedom of speech by deeming images "obscene" when dealing with resources on obstetrics, gynecology, and sexual health; visual art and poetry; resources designed for gays and lesbians; information about books and stock photographic images offered for sale; and online magazines.
So in the weighty Progressive vs. Conservative debate,who do you think was for freedoms here? Conservatives want to protect children from the boobies on the internet (which is noble), but, at the same time it would also take away an adults freedom to look at doctor's website about breast exams.
Progressives think that a person's personal choice to look up artful boobies or doctor sites about breast exams is their right (and freedom) to do so.
free-dom
noun
1: the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2 a : a political right b : franchise, privilege
This also brings us to "fairness"
Progressives also feel that in all fairness to each citizen of the United States that the Constitution of the United States is upheld to the fullness of the law. Case in Point:
There is a separation of church and state in the First Amendment which reads something like:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This issue comes up every December with the Merry Christmas/Happy Holiday debate. While there is no real "War on Christmas" there is a better understanding that in fairness and respect to other religions during the month of December public (Federal or State) funded institution should favor one religion over another.
So what would be the fair thing to do?
Gov. Christine Gregoire said that in her state of Washington that in 2008 they "...would forth a policy allowing individuals or groups to sponsor a display regardless of that individual's or group's views."
True, after that statement the state saw the nativity, flying spaghetti monster and Festivus all being represented. She was however, criticized (Bill O'Reilly for starters) for letting people with non-Christmas viewpoints (War on Christmas) have equal say and ultimately because of this, for the winter of 2009, she will not let ANYone have a nativity, flying spaghetti monster or Festivus scene (sorry Festivus).
So in the weighty Progressive vs. Conservative debate,who do you think was for fairness here? Conservatives in this case wanted to preserve the ideas of a Christian December by having it exclusive to those who celebrate Christmas, but, at the same time it would also infringe on a persons freedom of (and from) religion.
Progressives think that a person's personal freedom of religion is the right to practice their religion without anyone saying they can't. They also think that the Government shouldn't endorse or favor one religion over another. Hence fairness
fair-ness
noun
6 a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with>
b (1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share>
Now shut up
how about Theodore Roosevelt?
You quote this above, and then use Obama as an example, and yet from people like yourself, we hear over and over again how LIBERAL Obama is. If he is so liberal, how was he able to "pull himself up" and become President, because apparently he doesn't believe he should be able to do so according to your reasoning.
Liberals do not want to officiate outcomes, as you claim above.
Conservatives have used the government to their own end just as much, or possibly more than, liberals have in the past, and will do so in the future.
Fairness is meaning that everyone in our country should have access to everything that everyone else has access to. As in, education, loans, and so on. Freedom and fairness are not mutually exclusive as you suggest, but go hand in hand down the road. You just choose to not see how some segments of our population are not treated fairly, and think through their own force of will and action can overcome that, and sometimes, that's just not true.
As far as officiating outcomes, have you heard about the 'fairness doctrine' or whatever it is called now? The idea of regulating the content of free speech? If you seek 'balance' and 'fairness' in radio, who determines what is fair? If not the marketplace of ideas in the hands of the people to choose what they listen to, then some bureaucrat or people's committee?
I agree that fairness should exist for individuals to act freely. The courts should punish criminals that take from us property and freedom of mobility. Fairness and freedom are not mutually exclusive, but the best way to remedy the unfairnesses found in this world is the freedom of individuals to act upon the resources they have access to. Not everyone is rich, but some may what to work to that end. Some even get there by their own merits, hard work, a good idea, etc. Freedom of opportunity is closest thing to fairness that should exist. But to demand, as Quinn described the lef....er...progressive's definition of fairness, is that it is not the equality of the starting point but the equality of the ending point that determines fairness. A conservative also understands that we are not born 'equally' but that the limitations imposed are lack of will to act freely to succeed or to be unfairly restrained by other entities to act freely.
By electing Obama, we've FINALLY ended the "preferential hiring practice" of putting overindulged white males into high office.
'Bout time.
What are you babbling about now? I voted FOR Obama -- I have no hate.
The idiocy, proud, the idiocy ... let it go . . .
Giving fairness to all without fairness would give freedom to some and not to those who want EVERYTHING.
Giving freedom to all without fairness would give those who want everything the freedom to persecute others, therefore violating the freedom given to all.
Freedom and fairness are not opposites; they are qualities that require coexistence and balance. And they are certainly qualities that don't apply to only Democrats or Republicans.
If conservatives truly believe in the equality of the individual, they would be doing everything they can to make the individual happy. That includes the right to choose their sexual partners and marriage partners.
Exactly. Why should a wife who stays home and raises the kids be entitled to anything when the husband runs off with his secretary?
IT'S A CONTRACT. I can't believe this has to be explained to you.
So, proudneoKKKon -- when conservatives repeatedly referred to Justice Sonia Sotomayor {and President Obama} as "racists", that was . . . ??
So when Justice Sotomayer judged that the firefighter's test was racially biased against minorities, that was judging that the test, taken by a wide spectrum of ethnic groups, was biased against Americans of black african heritage and other minorities, even though some were successful in completing the test. It is like saying that because they were American's of black african heritage or other minorities, that they cannot compete out of hand and therefor, inferior. In fact, many individuals from minority achieve success in business, academics, etc because of their response to circumstances is to act freely upon the resources available to them. To think otherwise is indeed racist.
The president referred to his grandmother, who basically raised him, as a 'typical white person'. I guess he saw some of her attributes as shared in a large part by those of similar ethnic background. Some might consider that statement as having a racially oriented view of an individual's behavior.
So beyond it being freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that it is correct speech but rather the freedom of people to decide whether to listen to that speech in the future, or not to listen. Fairness is not achieved by making people listen to things that they would rather not listen to, but giving them the freedom to make an individual choice to listen or not.
Leftists = totally cool
Wow, this politics stuff is easier than I thought!
"To conservatives, there is plenty of unfairness in the world, but overcoming it has nothing to do with government fiat. It is addressed by the freedom of the individual to take the gifts they have and apply them to the resources available to them. Even a bi-racial kid, abandoned by his father, raised by his white grandparents, able to freely access opportunities for education and vocation found in this country, can accomplish great things that just a generation ago would have been unheard of."
So, PC, would you agree that the children I taught in New Orleans a while back who had parents who worked two and sometimes three jobs, are stuck some days not knowing if they will have dinner, have to have more "gifts" than the kids who grow up knowing that they'll have three meals a day and a parent home to help them with their homework?
Are those two situations "fair?"
The conservatives point to those who make it and claim that if that person can, anyone can, but neglect to even attempt to think what their lives would be like in someone else's situation
Do you know of any 'rags to riches' stories? Even in the big easy, I'm sure some excelled when they were given little chance. Why? Ultimately, because of the choices they made with the resources they had.
and guess what. he gave us our public library system. such evil liberal institution!
Since you're not worried about fairness, I assume you'll be putting your kids into an inner-city school here soon, correct? After all, don't you want to see what choices your children would make in those situations? Ultimately, that would be a test of their character, correct?
I guess my bottom line is, why should anyone suffer or succeed because of the choices their parents made?
They're Anarchists, until they get hold of the administration of our Government again, at which time they become fascists.
OK, enough about them... you know this guy Van Jones?
I'd never heard of him until a few days ago, and in truth I wish I'd never heard of him at all. But a strange thing has happened of late, maybe you already know about it: there's this malicious character at Fox News Channel named glenn beck, and it seems he's had a lot of trouble recently, calling the President a racist on a Fox broadcast, and getting all sorts of flack because of it, and losing sponsors from his Fox show...
So this beck guy, he attempts to distract from his troubled media existence by turning the controversy onto someone else, some guy named Van Jones (who people keep misidentifying as an advisor to the President, but I find out he is no such thing, he's just an advisor to the Council on Environmental Quality, which itself is so unimportant as to not even have an office in The White House or even The Executive Office Building, but is located on Jackson Place... and mind you, this guy Jones isn't even a member of that Council, but merely an advisor to it)...
OK, so glenn beck goes after this guy Jones in his Fox television and radio broadcasts, until it's suddenly all about Van Jones, and no longer about glenn beck (and why so many people had to run after this distraction, and start clucking about Van Jones, I'll never know, because like I said I didn't know the guy and couldn't really have cared less), but beck hammers away at this citizen Van Jones in his broadcasts, day after day I believe, until finally it works, it's all about Van Jones, and the guy decides to resign from his obscure position as advisor to the Council on Environmental Quality (which is another thing I don't get, why the guy resigned, but I guess I don't really care that much about him to want to know more)...
OK, what's all that got to do with Laws and "fairness" and Justice?
You do know don't you, that just twenty short years ago, and for fifty plus years before that, if anyone holding an FCC License used that License to broadcast personal attacks, then they had to allow the person attacked an opportunity to reply (Reply Time it's called), seeing as how the Public Airwaves are public, and are not meant for the private or political use of the FCC License holder... and twenty years ago, what glenn beck did in personally attacking this guy Van Jones in his broadcasts, would have required that Van Jones be allowed to defend himself on the same airwaves in which he was attacked, by way of the Reply Time provision of FCC Regulations... you know that, right?
Also back twenty years ago, and for fifty plus years before then, if a broadcaster used their FCC License to broadcast their political opinions on our Public Airwaves, then they had to allow for Equal Time to different or opposing political opinions... you knew that too, right?
OK, what I'm recalling for you here is a former FCC Regulatory Policy, repealed twenty years ago after more than fifty years being FCC Policy, that discouraged personal attacks by broadcasters, and did not so much discourage political opinions being broadcast, but kept those political opinions from being the exclusive and sole opinions of the broadcasters... because the Public Airwaves aren't theirs, they're ours, and we don't license them out for the personal private political use of broadcasters, or for personal attacks either.
OK, enough about that... you figure out what the above has to do with Law and Justice and "fairness", which it was the word "fairness" that got me going.
And another thing I don't understand, is why so many people on this side of the political spectrum are just fine with the idea of privatizing the Public Airwaves, and forfeiting that precious and powerful public resource to people like rupert murdoch and his hack glenn beck... see what that gets you?
"Fairness" clearly doesn't equate to anything the "right" does.
Republicans are deeply unserious people these days and Quinn is nothing but a polemicist.
Two points, first, yes Quinn is part of the contrary voice of people who see that the media is in the tank for liberalism.
And secondly, this seems pretty serious to me.
nice try.
OK, so --
"Unfairness" MUST = "freedom" -- right, Jimbo?
Got it -- I guess . . .
"Sometimes money trumps freedom."
There ya have it folks. The nutjob philosophy. 1-money, 2-god, 3-guns, 4-freedom.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strenght
Etc.