|
Post by noobylibertarian on Jan 24, 2007 23:29:30 GMT -5
I've been a listening to the the Source for about two years now. and I like the playbacks at night but why isn't his show played back or why no website like the others hosts. I only can catch a few minutes of his show at the start. Some show topics are a interest to me but other shows he sounds like he's a pat roberson wannabe
|
|
|
Post by bobegglan on Jan 25, 2007 10:46:09 GMT -5
Most likely because he pays for his own air-time.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 11:57:07 GMT -5
i have already exposed erwin for the lying clown he is.
he claims Christianity is all about "tolerance" THEN GOES ON TO ADMIT HE IS USING THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE LAWS BASED ON HIS CONCEPT OF RELIGION.
he declared yesterday that hios version is the ONLY version and IF you dont agree with him you are WRONG no other way to deal with it.
erwin is a nutjob and conartist......he was talking about gambling being bad because "you get something for nothing" BUT then hosted a shopw about precious metal investing, PURE SPECULATION and clearly the SAME as gambling when it comes to getting something for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jan 25, 2007 12:03:39 GMT -5
I'd have to agree with all of that.
Plus, I just just can't stand to hear his Pee Wee Herman voice. I'm gonna start calling him "Pee Wee Erwin."
Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by killer on Jan 25, 2007 12:06:10 GMT -5
There is such a resemblance in voice and appearance to Pat Robertson. Anyone ever noticed that?
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 25, 2007 12:57:03 GMT -5
Hank's show fits into the Crawford Broadcasting, "God & Country" format. Other shows like the AM and Matt aren't required to dicsuss the Christian perspective of issues. Hank's show helps make up for that. If you enjoy Matt's show and the AM then you should be glad Hank is on the air.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 13:04:41 GMT -5
frank, was it YOU that told me on the phone that erwin pays for his own show?
if so are you saying that the commercials he runs are FREE?
IF not then erwin is NOT paying for the airtime his sponsors are paying and based on the number he runs i would be confident is saying there is also some profit left over.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 25, 2007 13:19:02 GMT -5
Hank runs his show as a business. He does make a profit. With that said, my point above was that having a Chrisitan talk show like Hank's helps 101.1 to be a "God & Country" station. Hank's overt Christianity adds to the 101.1 "God & Country" format. By focusing on the "God" part it seems to me that the AM and Matt can focus on the "Country" part of the Crawford Broadcasting emphasis.
(Since we're on the air right now, is this considered "live-blogging"?) ;>
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 13:30:56 GMT -5
since he makes a "profit" why the need to LIE in claiming he pays for the show?
the clients pay not only for the show but also enough to leave a profit.
also how come the senator claims being in the senate is a full time job, BUT he diverts MUCH of his time in a pursuit to make profit in a very public way?
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 25, 2007 13:39:54 GMT -5
Bill,
I'm not sure what is confusing you. Hank "pays" for the show by writing a check to 101.1. Then he sells air time to his advertisers. That is a fairly typical entrepenuer venture. The entrepenurial risk is that he would be unable to find sponsors. He pays 101.1 regardless of whether he finds sponsors or not. Does that help you understand better?
A State Senator serves the State on a part-time basis, and is paid as a part-time employee by the State. I don't know of a State Senator that doesn't have another job in addition to his Senate duties. With that said, Hank as many of them do, says that it feels like a full time job because of the year-round efforts they put into the job. They are only paid when they are in session in Montgomery.
I don't see how any of this makes Senator Erwin a "liar." Explain it to me. :>
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 13:45:56 GMT -5
he lies when he claims to be tolerant yet tries to use the force of law to make others live by his rules.
right NOW on the air they are LYING about meth, called it "pure poison".
meth was legal in the 60's there were no meth labs, there were no deaths from poisoning, the main users were night shift workers and housewives trying to lose weight.
i was given meth by a basketball coach in panama city fla, jack jackson of gulf coast community college and HATED they way it made me feel that was my ONLY time trying it.
the real problems with drug use come from trying to prohibit it, not the use itself.....those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it, we are in the midst of repeating the FAILED prohibition.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 25, 2007 13:50:01 GMT -5
I read your comment to the Teen Challenge guests.
Now on the topic of tolerance...
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 25, 2007 13:59:01 GMT -5
From sitting and listening to Hank almost everyday, here is my interpretation of what he means by tolerance...
You have the right to believe anything you want to believe. Hank uses precepts taught in his Christian faith as the assumptions from which he logically conlcudes how to respond to varies political issues.
Every logical person does the same thing. You start with a set of assumptions and precepts and draw conclusions from that. It sounds like to me that you and Hank start with very different assumptions.
The fact you don't like his assumptions doesn't mean he is is being intolerant of your right to disagree with him. Disagreement is what makes for interesting conversation. Keep it up and thanks for calling in Bill.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 14:13:12 GMT -5
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145128,00.html It's obvious that Hank's reference to meth being "pure poison" is figurative and not literal. It's one thing to say people have a right to take drugs as long as they don't affect others, it's another to ignore the facts that certain drugs do cause negative physical and behavioral problems. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 14:14:54 GMT -5
you are welcome frank, the point remains for me that words have meanings, and tolerance means
tol·er·ance /ˈtɒlərəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-er-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry. 2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own. 3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint. 4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
CLEARLY tolerance is defined as allowing others to live their lives as they see fit, trying to make gambling illegal(telling another how they may spend their own money) is INtolerant.
CLEARLY proclaiming as the senator did that his way is the ONLY way is INtolerant.
he is NOT even giving any thought whatsoever to the possiblity that his interretation of the Bible is different from what other Christians interpret.
how come so many churches all over this nation hold "bingo" games???
why did God give man free will IF HE didnt intend for people to have choices to make?
cant you see how using the force of government to LIMIT what others may do is in direct opposition to God's will?
how tolerant was it for the caller to proclaim the morning show and this site to be of "heathens"??
at that point hank has an oblgiation to truth and honesty to confront that caller, frank you sorta did, but hank was mute.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 14:16:18 GMT -5
thank you corny for your usual nonsense.
hank didnt say it and he AGREED with me on the air.
corny you are consistent, wrong but consistent
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 14:23:49 GMT -5
thank you corny for your usual nonsense. hank didnt say it and he AGREED with me on the air. corny you are consistent, wrong but consistent hank didn't say what? and what did hank agree with you on? Point out what I said was nonsense then.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 14:31:03 GMT -5
"CLEARLY tolerance is defined as allowing others to live their lives as they see fit"
So if others choose to live their lives in a fashion that includes murdering people, we should remain tolerant? Tolerance by definition has a limit. Isn't it intolerant for you to determine what hank's limit is?
People don't have the right to disagree with something you agree with, if they do, then they are labeled as being intolerant. You're just on the same level of political correctness.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 14:38:01 GMT -5
me PC....LOL hilarious corny.
of course murder is illegal because another person is being HARMED in a very direct manner.
and NO corny i am NOT being intolerant of hanks opinions, I am Iin NO way attempting to silence him, NOT allow him to express that opinion.
that is the essense of tolerance, while you may not agree in any way with another's opinion, those claiming to be tolerant are REQUIRED to allow that opinion to exist!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 14:43:06 GMT -5
"CLEARLY proclaiming as the senator did that his way is the ONLY way is INtolerant.
he is NOT even giving any thought whatsoever to the possiblity that his interretation of the Bible is different from what other Christians interpret."
You don't know that.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 14:44:50 GMT -5
me PC....LOL hilarious corny. of course murder is illegal because another person is being HARMED in a very direct manner. and NO corny i am NOT being intolerant of hanks opinions, I am Iin NO way attempting to silence him, NOT allow him to express that opinion. that is the essense of tolerance, while you may not agree in any way with another's opinion, those claiming to be tolerant are REQUIRED to allow that opinion to exist! You use definitions of words to prove your points but then don't hold to the same definition when a scenario is shown to contradict your boxed in concepts. You took definitions of the word and came up with a definition that you think is applicable: "tolerance is defined as allowing others to live their lives as they see fit" Your defintion is incorrect and does not allow for any exceptions to the rule.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 15:22:29 GMT -5
sorry corny, not even close....tolerance ENDS as applied to how others live WHEN they decide to harm others with their actions, when they STEAL from people, when they USE FORCE to impose their will on others.
i am tolerant of others rights to own weapons, i am INtolerant if they decide to try to use those weapons against me or my family.
i am tolerant of others rights to use drugs, I am INtolerant when they try to coerce my child to join them in that activity.
OBVIOUSLY to any thinking person tolerance has LIMITS.
by the way corny YOU sir have been exposed again for using DECEIT in addressing what i have posted.
|
|
|
Post by firestud2829 on Jan 25, 2007 15:27:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 25, 2007 15:31:59 GMT -5
sorry corny, not even close....tolerance ENDS as applied to how others live WHEN they decide to harm others with their actions, when they STEAL from people, when they USE FORCE to impose their will on others. i am tolerant of others rights to own weapons, i am INtolerant if they decide to try to use those weapons against me or my family. i am tolerant of others rights to use drugs, I am INtolerant when they try to coerce my child to join them in that activity. OBVIOUSLY to any thinking person tolerance has LIMITS. by the way corny YOU sir have been exposed again for using DECEIT in addressing what i have posted. No deceit present...I displayed and argued the defintion YOU gave. You are now trying to add into the meaning of the words YOU choose to post. See again below if you have forgotten: "tolerance is defined as allowing others to live their lives as they see fit"Of course I am busting your chops over this but thought you would like a taste of your own medicine for once. Tastes bad doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 25, 2007 15:35:21 GMT -5
Bill, I understand you to argue that Hank is intolerant because he wants to create law that imposes his religious view on others.
(Personally, I avoid this problem because I defend every one of my positions from a secular position as well as from a Christian position, but this is about Hank not me...)
Hank chooses to use the bible as the starting point for his world view. (I do as well btw. but I also believe similar to Tao philosophy that because God's world is universally true I can use "secular" logic without even having to mention God.)
You choose the Libertarian dogma "If it doesn't hurt anyone else then it should be legal." But that is still a worldview belief that begins your logical discourse. Everyone argues from orginal worldview perspective that you could accuse of being intolerant because they use their worldview to "impose their [insert comperable religious term here] view by passing laws that match what they believe.
For example, I have many friends that are aethestic or at best agnostic that believe that laws should be imposed protecting the enviorenment. We can debate enviorenmental laws without me calling them intolerant for wanting their worldview implemented into law.
Your libitarian worldview could be used to argue that consenting adults having sex for money (i.e. prostitution) should be legal. We can discuss whether the government should allow that without me accusing you of being intolerant, even though your worldview is what dictates the legalization of prostitution.
My real point is that you need to consider why a Christian worldview causes you to accuse someone of being intolerant. In fact, therefore, are you intolerant of Christians?
just asking, dont call me names :>
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 15:37:25 GMT -5
saw people using meth throughout the 60's and thought they were FOOLS(same opinion i hold today).
BUT it didnt KILL them.
direct ingestion of a PURE POISON results in death in a very short time.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 15:40:24 GMT -5
corny you have done NOTHING but show your own dishonesty.
my definition describes tolerance, there is also another word INtolerance.
my definition does NOT rule out being INtolerant of certain behaviors as you FALSELY claim.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 15:42:27 GMT -5
frank, please show me ONE IOTA of intolerance of Christians in my posts?
INtolerance means trying to STOP the behavior, trying to NOT allow it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jan 25, 2007 16:15:44 GMT -5
You said Hank was intolerant for wanting to impose his worldview on the legal system. I was explaining that everyone who suggests what should be legal or illegal does so based upon their worldview.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 25, 2007 16:30:32 GMT -5
i assume from your post frank, that you couldnt find even one iota for an example of me being INtolerant of Christianity.
this thread illustrates why the constitution was written as it was, the FF understood that good well intentioned people clearly could have DEEP disagreements about religion, so in order to have a civil society there could be NO ROLE for government on the issue of religion.
when ONE sect imposes its views on the rest CLEARLY there will be problems. see iraq if you dont think that is so.
prohibition traces its roots to Christian INtolerance and cause GREAT DISharmony in this nation.
|
|