PDA

View Full Version : Left vs. Right: Political Discussion



No-name
03-01-05, 19:37
Censport, I hope you can find this.

On another post, I was ranting about politics. This forum seemed more appropriate. So feel free to add your rant. It doesn't necessarily have to be a response.

Education is not a Conservative priority. No Child Left Behind does not provide one cent to education. The GOP has consistantly fought every bill that gives money to schools, that provides loans or grants to college students or that promotes better nutrition or health care for children. Reagan and Bush the 1st even tried to get rid of the Department of Education (because education is a state issue, not a federal one.)

Progressivism and liberals have fought for civil rights. For the end to segregation. For voting rights. For a minimum wage and social security and for safer foods and drugs. They have successfully put limits on businesses that protect consumers, the economy and the environment. They have integrated a regressive tax code which helps to redistribute the nations wealth. Programs such as head start, medicare, the GI bill, college grants and your local library are all liberal spending programs. Your parks, your fire department, your police department and the guys that are supposed to fix the pot holes out in the street are all liberal spending projects. Emergency rooms, trauma centers, paramedic ambulances would all lose every cent of funding if not for liberal support.

No-name
03-01-05, 19:49
They may not have solve a single problem, but Liberals have done a lot to fight for equality, to fight the effects of poverty, to ease suffering.

Re: Taxing everyone but me. My check is tax money anyway. It seems kinda counterproductive to pay me and then to take it back.

Please (is the DNC listening?) No Dell, No Lieberman, No Hilary in 2008. It would be nice to WIN one. (and I don't see a single Democrat out there who leads and articulates a vision of our great land.) Can we trade you all three for one McCain?

Censport
03-01-05, 20:38
Can we trade you all three for one McCain?
Joe, Zell, maybe. But NO Hillary! You guys created that monster and you're stuck with it!

:lol:

For those coming to this party a little late, here's something from the previous discussion (it'll save me a lot typing):



I'm a teacher, so "conservative" is not a bad word, just bad policy.

A few reasons why I'm a liberal: Federal power over states rights. Social programs. Education. An activist policy that tries to solve problems. The environment. Human rights. Health care, nutrition, head start programs, after school programs...Much of this costs money so I want to tax you and spend it. I think this is more honest than borrow and spend.

At least you're honest about it. That's kinda refreshing, actually.

I'm more for states rights instead of a centralized federal government (what works in Maine won't necessarily work in Monatana). Remember the national 55-mph speed limit?

As for social programs, I agree that we have a moral obligation to care for those who truly cannot care for themselves. However, I believe that those who can take care of themselves have an equal moral obligation to do just that. Lacking a work ethic isn't a disability. Hang around any government benefits office and you will mostly see perfectly able-bodied people who know how to play 'the system'. I'm not against social programs, but I am against bloated vote-buying schemes masquerading as social programs.

But then you simply said "social programs". Perhaps you could add some context?

Do the same for "Education". After all, who isn't for educating kids and adults?

I've yet to see an activist policy that solved anything. Milked problems for everything they were worth (Araft, Jesse Jackson), but solved a problem?

Human rights? Again, you need to expand on that. You'll have a tough time finding anyone in the Republican party who isn't for human rights. We're the party of Linclon, remember? In 1964, it was 94% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats who passed Johnson's Civil Rights Act. But organizations like NOW aren't about equal rights, they're about revenge.

But at least you admitted that you want to tax ME but said nothing of taxing yourself. (reminds me of an old joke). Why does everything have to be forced charity by the federal government. Isn't that fasicism? Or have you not seen the reports of how "red" counties donate more to charity than "blue" counties?

And since you're a teacher, haven't you ever wondered why you have the most powerful labor union in the US, but you still make less than some guy working an assembly line building your Chrysler? Your union wouldn't be taking you and your money for a ride would they?




My voting block tends to be the "Democrats will take you for granted" block, because they know that for now, they don't have to do anything for our votes. The South used to belong, but started quitting it way back with Reagan. Anger can be healthy. Maybe my party will wake up?

You make a good point there. Will they? Sure, they need to listen, but you also have to speak up. If your party isn't listening to you, aren't you just wasting your vote? After Nader's run in 2000, you would think that would've done for the DNC what Perot did for the GOP in '92. But the only thing the DNC had going for them was how their voters felt about Bush. What were the survey results? 70% anti-Bush and only 30% were pro-Kerry? What the heck are you gonna do in '08? The GOP is fired up and Hillary will only strengthen them.

If you're really passionate about your party, you have to become proactive within the party, or it will only continue to take you for granted and not represent you. God forbid you guys end up with your own Hitler. Of course, if you get the party on a cohesive message with a candidate that doesn't come off as an elitist hypocrite (Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, H. Clinton) and you're still losing elections, you may have to consider that the voters are deciding that they don't need your agenda. But at least you could stop wondering "what if..."

Censport
03-01-05, 20:38
They may not have solve a single problem, but Liberals have done a lot to fight for equality, to fight the effects of poverty, to ease suffering.
Isn't solving the problem the whole purpose? Granted, Liberals have done more to raise awareness of some problems, but then they have the tendency to keep the 'problem' alive for political leverage. Flogging oneself to demonstrate your sympathy doesn't help the people in need. I think there was a plaque on Reagan's desk that read: "You'll be amazed at what can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit."

There's this old joke about a Republican and a Democrat walking down the street when they come upon a homeless man. After the homeless guy explains his situation, the Republican reaches into his pocket and gives the guy a $20. Then the Democrat reaches into the Republican's pocket and hands the man a $20.

Get it? It still gives me a chuckle....

Liberals are far from owning the civil rights debate. Not just because Sen. Byrd was once a Klansman, or because Al Gore Sr. was a segregationist, or Woodrow Wilson was a Klan sympathizer. As I said before, far more Republicans supported Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Emancipation Proclamation, anyone? The 1994 Welfare Reform Act? Sure, Liberals fight for such things, but it's the Republicans who end up winning it for you.

And yet, we only get 10% of the black vote and the NAACP runs campaign ads blaming a black man's dragging death on George W. Bush. As if prosecuting those men for a hate crime instead of for murder would've helped. But I digress...

It's interesting that you associate every single spending porgram to Liberals. What is your basis for that?

By the way, how's that Head Start program working?

As you can imagine, I don't consider redistribution of wealth to be very noble, and support the idea of a flat tax even though it would raise my taxes. After all, any tax based on jealousy or envy isn't going to be fair. Our system promotes the growth of economy, while wealth redistribution plans only stagnate economies. Just at Old Europe. People living below the poverty line in this country still enjoy a higher standard of living than the middle class in Europe.

Wealth doesn't just exist. It is created. So which works better, a level playing field to start from, or a system where everyone ends up at the same place, regardless of their effort? Which system do you think promotes a healthy work ethic?

At least you called it "regressive", instead of "progressive".

Duo
03-01-05, 21:20
That's crap, socialism is not about not working, is about creating a minimal level of life conditions, so no one starves or that more people can actually enjoy the basic needs in life.

Censport
03-01-05, 21:34
That's crap, socialism is not about not working, is about creating a minimal level of life conditions, so no one starves or that more people can actually enjoy the basic needs in life.
What is your definition of basic needs? To many of socialism's supporters, it's all about 'everyone having the same amount of stuff.' If that doesn't kill work ethic, what does? If a person doesn't run the risk of starving, what is going to motivate them to get off the sofa and into a job?

I'm not saying your intentions are bad. Nobody really wants anyone to starve. But your method isn't the right permanent solution.

Fantt
03-01-05, 21:45
Does anyone have the "right permanent solution" that will prevent starvation and homelessness?

According to many of its opponents, Socialism destroys work ethics and will also destroy a country's economy. However, most of western Europe is socialist and they seem to be doing pretty darn well. I doubt that any country has for a "right permanent solution," but just because Socialism may not work in the US, it doesn't follow that it can't work anywhere else.

Censport
03-01-05, 21:58
However, most of western Europe is socialist and they seem to be doing pretty darn well.
Is that so? Tried living over there? You should look at pre-Thatcher England, with its 95% tax ceiling and lack of reinvesting into businesses with how much better it thanks to Thatcher. Or heck, just look back at the Carter administration (which I remember well) and then Reagan.

No-name
03-01-05, 21:59
Like Zell Miller, most politicians are opportunistic scavengers who tend to be where the meat is ripest. He swung around so fast on the Bush platform that Kerry was impressed. Southern democrats in the 20th century seemed to have reflected the majority of their constituency. Some like Ronald Reagan and former White Supremacist Strum Thurmond, just changed parties.

Neither party has remained consistent in the last hundred years on any one issue. I don't think the current GOP platform would reflect the views of Lincoln or Roosevelt. (Or even Nixon) but I also don't think that the Democrat's platform would impress FDR or Kennedy.

The GOP began in part as a xenophobic anti-catholic party. Lincoln did a great thing as it's first national candidate in distancing it from the "Native American" and "No-Nothing" roots. Ending slavery was a liberal idea. Keeping things as they were would have been a conservative idea.

Welfare was effective in getting kids out of orphanages and supporting single mothers in raising their own children. Welfare reform pushed many of these marginal families out into the street. So much for that success.

Head Start was supposed to raise the IQ's of deprived inner city children. That goal failed. But kids attending head start graduated from high school in far high numbers, went on to college and generally got better paying jobs later on. I would count it a success.

I think the GI bill was a success. I like the Pell Grant program and GSL programs.

I don't think there is such a thing as a conservative spending program. "Government should stay out of our business." doesn't really cost anything.

The creation of wealth and income redistribution are issues best debated by economists. I have an opinion, but it is a HS social science teacher's opinion... so I'd have to work out the specifics: Minimum wage was a wealth redistribution. It created wealth by creating jobs that paid enough to buy with and created consumers. Labor creates wealth also. Rich people getting richer tends to create poverty.

Civil rights is and remains a liberal issue by definition. That so many (mostly northern) republicans supported it speaks for a party that even under Nixon supported liberal social policies. Southern Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act. So I should thank the GOP for all the good liberal programs that have shaped our society and blame the democrats for all the bad liberal programs that create problems in our society?

No-name
03-01-05, 22:06
How about an Edwards-Obama ticket in 2008?

Duo
03-01-05, 22:26
Is that so? Tried living over there? You should look at pre-Thatcher England, with its 95% tax ceiling and lack of reinvesting into businesses with how much better it thanks to Thatcher. Or heck, just look back at the Carter administration (which I remember well) and then Reagan.

Most americans who come to europe don't want to leave anymore. The services here are way better than in the US,though taxes are higher. Free University, cheap healthcare, things that in the US cost a fortune. U criticized socialism, but if people dont have sm kind of basic living quality, what kind of life do they look for, what hope is given to them? Like the kids that are born in poverty in the Ghetto, they don't bother with school, they just go and do illegal things cuz to them it seems the only way to make themselves a better life, they give up on education and such, cuz is way above them, whereas in europe, at least a poor kid can still rely on help from the gov, go to a free university, or insittute of higher learning, and become a productive member of society.

Duo
03-01-05, 22:28
How about an Edwards-Obama ticket in 2008?

Maybe that could work, however i don't know from this last election and campaign i got the impression that logic don't work so well to get votes from the american public, so maybe if these guys can deliver feel good messages, and emotional appeal they could win.

No-name
03-01-05, 22:29
Most americans who come to europe don't want to leave anymore. The services here are way better than in the US,though taxes are higher. Free University, cheap healthcare, things that in the US cost a fortune. U criticized socialism, but if people dont have sm kind of basic living quality, what kind of life do they look for, what hope is given to them? Like the kids that are born in poverty in the Ghetto, they don't bother with school, they just go and do illegal things cuz to them it seems the only way to make themselves a better life, they give up on education and such, cuz is way above them, whereas in europe, at least a poor kid can still rely on help from the gov, go to a free university, or insittute of higher learning, and become a productive member of society.

I suppose there are trade offs to every situation. Sounds intersting. I need to visit Europe sometime. I have a sister that lives in Italy and my wife's uncle lives in Paris.

And not to disagree, but I was born in poverty in a Ghetto to a single mom with seven children. Six finished high school. Five finished college and got masters degrees. Four are teachers. So it is possibly here, but I had substantial help from the government all the way through my schooling.

And I think in the long run, the last election here was very healthy. People were interested and excited. They talked about issues and got involved and finally turned out in record numbers. I hope the trend continues.

Censport
03-01-05, 23:03
Like Zell Miller, most politicians are opportunistic scavengers who tend to be where the meat is ripest. He swung around so fast on the Bush platform that Kerry was impressed. Southern democrats in the 20th century seemed to have reflected the majority of their constituency. Some like Ronald Reagan and former White Supremacist Strum Thurmond, just changed parties.
Since Zell Miller is not running for any politcal office (he could've been reelected easily, but decided to retire), how is he an opportunist? By definition, opportunists are looking to GAIN something, and Miller has gained nothing. And if he swung around, then where are the pictures of him taking part in anti-war rallies? No, he's always had the same position. You really need to read his book, "National Party No More". It echoes a lot of the same reasons that Reagan had felt the Democratic party had left him too.


Neither party has remained consistent in the last hundred years on any one issue. I don't think the current GOP platform would reflect the views of Lincoln or Roosevelt. (Or even Nixon) but I also don't think that the Democrat's platform would impress FDR or Kennedy.
Actually, G.W. Bush is more of a moderate (there, I said it), like Nixon, than he is a "Goldwater-Republican" like Reagan (like me).


The GOP began in part as a xenophobic anti-catholic party. Lincoln did a great thing as it's first national candidate in distancing it from the "Native American" and "No-Nothing" roots. Ending slavery was a liberal idea. Keeping things as they were would have been a conservative idea.
WOW! That's the first time I've ever heard that! Have any evidence? Because that sounds a lot like wishful thinking. Even if it was a Liberal idea, it was still the Republicans who go it done. Or was Licoln an opportunistic scavenger?


Welfare was effective in getting kids out of orphanages and supporting single mothers in raising their own children. Welfare reform pushed many of these marginal families out into the street. So much for that success.
Welfare ballooned into a program that paid women to get pregnant while staying single. Any effort to make legitimate income (job) or reporting any gifts of money from other sources were met with a severe reduction of benefits. In welfare neighborhoods, it was not uncommon to see women with eight kids by six different fathers. You think I'm making this up? You should hang out with some of the people whose business is looking after them. A friend of mine is a criminal defense attorney, and many of his clients are on welfare. It's scary that a part of society has their values. But they can afford to, because we're supporting them.

Welfare reform was planned to get people off of welfare and back into supporting themselves by working. If it had been such a failure, then where is the back-to-back coverage by CNN, CBS, NPR and others? Granted, it would work better if we reformed the INS and stopped the hemmoraging of our borders....


Head Start was supposed to raise the IQ's of deprived inner city children. That goal failed. But kids attending head start graduated from high school in far high numbers, went on to college and generally got better paying jobs later on. I would count it a success.

I think the GI bill was a success. I like the Pell Grant program and GSL programs.
The GI bill, Pell Grant program (which helped me last year) are working well. I'll give ye that one, laddie. I'm not familiar with the GSL program. What is that?


I don't think there is such a thing as a conservative spending program. "Government should stay out of our business." doesn't really cost anything.
*ahem* Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines? Okay, we're not big on social programs. But we haven't ended any either. Believe me, the NEA (Nat'l Endowment of the Arts) and others would've been long gone.


The creation of wealth and income redistribution are issues best debated by economists. I have an opinion, but it is a HS social science teacher's opinion... so I'd have to work out the specifics: Minimum wage was a wealth redistribution. It created wealth by creating jobs that paid enough to buy with and created consumers. Labor creates wealth also. Rich people getting richer tends to create poverty.
Well I'm an engineer, not an economist. But if I may be so indulgent as to tell you a little story.... Remember the "Luxury Tax"? Any car, boat or airplane selling for more than $30,000 had an extra tax burden added for the buyer to pay. I was making my living as a factory Porsche technician. A mechanic at the dealership, in other words. Why Porsche instead of Ford? Mainly because of my racing background, and also my ability to work at a level expected by high-line dealerships and their customers. Porsches went for $45,000 to $100,00 in those days. So when the luxury tax (Envy Tax is what I called it) went into effect, guess what happened? People stopped buying Porsches. Sales plunged so drastically that it even hurt Porsche back in Germany. Mechanics lost their jobs, dealerships closed (which affected salesmen, secretaries and car washers) and as bad as it was, it was nothing compared to what the boat and aviation industry went through. They lost whole manufacturers. Rich people aren't self-sufficient; they support a lot of cooks, maids, mechanics, pilots and candlestick makers.

I would like to take a moment to point out that Porsche is a two-syllable word.

Keeping the minimum wage in line with inflation increases is one thing, but hiking the rate to get votes creates inflation and unemployment. [See: Carter administration.]

Civil rights is and remains a liberal issue by definition. That so many (mostly northern) republicans supported it speaks for a party that even under Nixon supported liberal social policies. Southern Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act. So I should thank the GOP for all the good liberal programs that have shaped our society and blame the democrats for all the bad liberal programs that create problems in our society?
Yes, you should. ;-)

Censport
03-01-05, 23:05
How about an Edwards-Obama ticket in 2008?
you'd have a lock on the 'chick vote' for sure.

Sorry, sometimes I can't help myself.

Censport
03-01-05, 23:15
Most americans who come to europe don't want to leave anymore. The services here are way better than in the US,though taxes are higher. Free University, cheap healthcare, things that in the US cost a fortune. U criticized socialism, but if people dont have sm kind of basic living quality, what kind of life do they look for, what hope is given to them? Like the kids that are born in poverty in the Ghetto, they don't bother with school, they just go and do illegal things cuz to them it seems the only way to make themselves a better life, they give up on education and such, cuz is way above them, whereas in europe, at least a poor kid can still rely on help from the gov, go to a free university, or insittute of higher learning, and become a productive member of society.
I think you're confusing the Republican party with the Libertarian party. We might have to start another thread for that.

In the meantime, hang around and keep reading. I think you've got a very narrow view of Republicans/conservatives, but considering the media and teachers in this country (no offense, sabro) it's to be expected.

No-name
03-01-05, 23:47
The hodge podge of political organizations that became the GOP in a Wisconsin schoolhouse in 1854 and later in Michigan included Mugwhumps, No-nothings, Free-Democrats, Free-Soilers, Whigs, and abolitionists (including a few suffragettes). Some of these were heavily anti-immigrant, anti Catholic, and anti-Irish. They abandoned all these positions to unite under one issue: the spread of slavery. Before the Lincoln and Douglas debates, they probably would have just remained another one of many political factions- but Lincoln gave focus and voice to the Republican movement. Not only was his election successful, but his message convinced several slaves states to secceed.

On that scale that I posted on the last thread, I always think of Liberal (left) as moving forward and embracing change, and Conservative as resisting change and protecting the current social order. Republicans began on the left.

Servicemen need to keep track of which party always resists raising their pay, and cutting benefits to fund tax cuts for wealthy yacht owners.

By the way I teach in a poor neighboorhood. I talk to people on welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing every day. I don't see people actually planning on being on welfare (or poor, pregnant or hooked on drugs) and I realized that people aren't always stupid just to annoy me. I've met the woman you mentioned. She wouldn't be any smarter, employable or any less pregnant without welfare. Welfare definitely needed reform and the 1994 bill was not a failure. But one consequence is that along with all the "bad" lazy poor people who got kick off the public rolls, were many "good" unfortunate people (especially single moms) who felt the crunch. It's hard to give away money or even soup without someone taking advantage and without encouraging them to get in line for money or soup again. It is hard to legislate against dishonesty, laziness, stupidity, or a set of values that run counter to society. We try, we try...

Light a fire and you keep a man warm for a day...light him on fire and he will stay warm for the rest of his life.

Does buying a Porshe create more jobs than buying two Hondas?

GSL: Guaranteed Student Loan. Also Perkins and NDSL programs. Title 1 money is good. I also like the FHA thing. I keep hoping that regulatory agencies like the FDA and NTSB are doing their jobs. Although this may not be liberal in the strictest sense, it is a big expense.

Democrats are not anti-Military. Someone should however speak up against Pork-barrel big ticket military programs that the pentagon didn't even ask for like the Crusader and the Reagan Naval strike group, while wasting billions in conspicous cost overruns and corporate dishonesty (which I know is not a conservative thing), and neglecting basic tools needed by guys on the line. We hire guys from these companies to negotiate with defense contractors and then they later get jobs back with these companies and we are supposed to act surprised?

Censport
04-01-05, 00:27
The hodge podge of political organizations that became the GOP in a Wisconsin schoolhouse in 1854 and later in Michigan included Mugwhumps, No-nothings, Free-Democrats, Free-Soilers, Whigs, and abolitionists (including a few suffragettes). Some of these were heavily anti-immigrant, anti Catholic, and anti-Irish. They abandoned all these positions to unite under one issue: the spread of slavery. Before the Lincoln and Douglas debates, they probably would have just remained another one of many political factions- but Lincoln gave focus and voice to the Republican movement. Not only was his election successful, but his message convinced several slaves states to secceed.
So the Republicans were pro-slavery, and that caused slave states to secceed? (Hint: poor Southern farmers didn't go to war so rich plantation owners could own slaves)


On that scale that I posted on the last thread, I always think of Liberal (left) as moving forward and embracing change, and Conservative as resisting change and protecting the current social order. Republicans began on the left.
Most people do. But when Republicans want to reform (update) welfare, social security or other programs, who's moving forward then?


Servicemen need to keep track of which party always resists raising their pay, and cutting benefits to fund tax cuts for wealthy yacht owners.
Gee, every soldier I've talked to (I'm not far from Fort Campbell and the 101st Airborne) has gotten a nice raise. Maybe you should update your sources. Also, servicemen are well aware of who cuts their budgets and forces them to strip outherwise serviceable aircraft just to get parts.


Does buying a Porshe create more jobs than buying two Hondas?
Not more, just different. Hondas don't need much maintenance and their owners aren't as demanding.


Democrats are not anti-Military.
Ah, so it was Republicans who were spitting on and throwing bags of urine and feces at our soldiers returning from Vietnam? Okaaaay....

No-name
04-01-05, 00:52
So the Republicans were pro-slavery, and that caused slave states to secceed? (Hint: poor Southern farmers didn't go to war so rich plantation owners could own slaves)


Most people do. But when Republicans want to reform (update) welfare, social security or other programs, who's moving forward then?


Gee, every soldier I've talked to (I'm not far from Fort Campbell and the 101st Airborne) has gotten a nice raise. Maybe you should update your sources. Also, servicemen are well aware of who cuts their budgets and forces them to strip outherwise serviceable aircraft just to get parts.


Not more, just different. Hondas don't need much maintenance and their owners aren't as demanding.


Ah, so it was Republicans who were spitting on and throwing bags of urine and feces at our soldiers returning from Vietnam? Okaaaay....


1. Republicans were anti-slavery. If I said differently, It was an error. The South seceeded to protect the institution of Slavery. My own classroom textbook says otherwise, that it was about states' rights, but my thinking is states' rights to what? Remember that the Republicans and Lincoln did not want a war, just to stop the spread of that glorious and God-given institution.

2. If by "reform" you mean gut to its core, then I agree.

3. I'm glad they got the pay raise Democrats fought for for years. Maybe now the cost of living adjustment will keep up with inflation. I also hope they get the HMMV armor they are asking for. And that their families will continue to benefit from the reserve job protection laws, free public education, and food stamp programs that they have more than earned.

4. I never spit on or threw urine or feces at anyone. Especially a vet. Both of my parents and each of my uncles served this country during WWII. But are you implying that being anti-war is unpatriotic? Incidents like you described happened, but I doubt the Democratic party had anything to do with it. (Can you imagine LBJ hurling a sack of...?) I doubt that most of even the die hard vietnam protesters would not stoop to the kind of behavior you described. (Remember peace, love, staggering around in a pot stupor?...oh, wait, no one "remembers" that.) People that insulted and assaulted our troops were idiots whose actions ran counter to their own cause. Idiots happen. They do stupid things. It's like their job.

Duo
04-01-05, 11:18
And not to disagree, but I was born in poverty in a Ghetto to a single mom with seven children. Six finished high school. Five finished college and got masters degrees. Four are teachers. So it is possibly here, but I had substantial help from the government all the way through my schooling.


Well, that's actually very admirable, but consider how many others went the other direction. Few are the ones that actually choose the path you took, well i guess i could always be wrong.

Duo
04-01-05, 11:20
I think you're confusing the Republican party with the Libertarian party. We might have to start another thread for that.

In the meantime, hang around and keep reading. I think you've got a very narrow view of Republicans/conservatives, but considering the media and teachers in this country (no offense, sabro) it's to be expected.


I wasn't talkin about conservatives/reublicans, but america in general. Why do you blame the media, what is this myth that in the US there is a liberal media, that's just pure fantasy, there are way more conservatives in the US media and are way better organized and louder than their liberal counterpart.

Censport
04-01-05, 17:48
I wasn't talkin about conservatives/reublicans, but america in general. Why do you blame the media, what is this myth that in the US there is a liberal media, that's just pure fantasy, there are way more conservatives in the US media and are way better organized and louder than their liberal counterpart.
Myth? In 1992, 1996 and 2000, surveys were taken of journalists, networks news anchors, news editors, reporters, etc. The result? 93% voted Democrat. I can find the article if you'll give me some time to look.

In the meantime, here is a non-profit group that breaks down and explains the media bias:
Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/)

If you think the media is conservatively biased, what is your basis? My opinion is what few conservatives that are in the media aren't any louder, but they do draw a bigger audience. People can their news now, you know. (unlike Canada)

No-name
04-01-05, 19:45
Darn liberal media:
"You know, I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office."
George W. Bush, 1989

No-name
04-01-05, 19:49
I don't know who did your surveys, and who they talked to (how many reporters and editors would even answer such a question?) but...

A survey by David Croteau from Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Sociology and Anthropology published in June 1998 found that:

On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
* Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
* The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.
* Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

and what about the Weekly Standard, New York Post and Fox? Right-wing media magnate Murdoch owns the conservative Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the national cable network Fox News, which he’s staffed with prominent conservative journalists, such as Brit Hume and Tony Snow, and star commentators, such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.

"In the west, 10 or 20 years, there has been massive research documenting the fact that the media are extraordinarily subordinated to external power. Now, when you have that power, the best technique is to ignore all of that discussion, ignore it totally, and to eliminate it, by the simple device of asserting the opposite. If you assert the opposite, that eliminates mountains of evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is false. That's what power means. And the way we assert the opposite is by just saying that the media are liberal."
Noan Chomsky, in FSTV's documentation The Myth Of The Liberal Media

Liberal Media: Tony Snow, The Beltway boys, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Tim Russert, Paula Zahn, Wolf Blitzer, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?

Media outlets are owned by big businesses with big business interests. They don't care which party wins because they own large chunks of both. If there is a bias, it is a pro-big business bias. (As well as an urban, bang-bang, event centered bias). I think we can lay that whole liberal media thing to rest.

No-name
04-01-05, 20:27
Q: Which pinko liberal president was responsible for: Nuclear weapons control, The Clean Air Act, the Department of the Environment, Title IX, affirmative action, protecting women's rights, welfare reform, and the EPA?

A: Richard Nixon. and he opened dialogue with China, too.

Bring back the liberal GOP of Nixon.

Censport
04-01-05, 21:19
sabro, you're quoting Chomsky? :erm: I usually make fun of people for doing that. But I'll try to remain civil here. Old Noam might be articulate, but he's hardly centered is he?

Anyway, back to the fray:

Reform - Just a few posts ago, you were agreeing with me that social programs were easily taken advantage of thanks to human nature (at least, that's what I thought you said). Then you define reform as "gut to the core"? You know how negotiation works, right?
"Okay, we're gonna end this program."
"You can't do that, people will starve!"
"Then let's meet halfway."
If the first team wanted to negotiate by starting the middle, halfway would still be bloated and inefficient. The Democrats in congress know this and start from waaaaay deep in Socialist territory. Daschle was very good at that.

Military pay - One of Bush's campaign platforms in 2000 was the increase in pay and the rebuilding of the military. I don't remember him fighting that.

Anti-military - I didn't mean to accuse you personally of doing such things. And yes, such events actually happened (one of my uncles did two tours of ground duty in Vietnam). But think about it: They were anti-establishment activists. Was Barry Goldwater in that crowd? No, they were the predecessors of Code Pink and other such groups. And as a matter of fact, I can visualize LBJ tossing some _____, sans bag. Not at soldiers, though. He just had that kind of personality.

Liberal media - How about ABC, CBS, NBC, NRP, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Paula Zahn, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Paul Begela, James Carville, perky Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Aaron Brown, Bill Moyers, the entire staff of 60 Minutes, David Letterman, Newsweek, Time, The Boston Globe, The Tennessean, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press, Reuters News Service, Terry Gross, Juan Williams (a regular on Fox News), Melissa Block, Steve Inskeep, Michelle Norris, Robert Seigal, Cokie Roberts, Corey Flintoff, Christiane Amanpour, Julie Chen, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Al Franken and Don Imus? And those are just the media people! Three of the people on your list are on my list, Pat and Alan are politicians (technically, not successfully) and not full-time media, and almost everyone you've listed works at one station!

And if you don't like Wolf Blitzer, I can't claim to be a fan but I'll trade Bill O'Reilly for him any day!

Lunch break is over. I'll check back later.

PS: Thanks for keeping this civil. On another Japanese forum, I've been called a Nazi, Fascist, warmonger and other cute names.

Duo
04-01-05, 21:38
Ha, let's not forget that lousy lying ann coulter, that rush guy, and also wats wrong with chomsky? Well i guess he and Howard Zinn are like the anti christ of the republicans. I seen fox news, and lemme just say, that's one awesome piece of entertainment, amazing news coverage, is just so hilarous, they say those things like they actually mean it.

Censport
04-01-05, 22:21
Ha, let's not forget that lousy lying ann coulter, that rush guy, and also wats wrong with chomsky? Well i guess he and Howard Zinn are like the anti christ of the republicans. I seen fox news, and lemme just say, that's one awesome piece of entertainment, amazing news coverage, is just so hilarous, they say those things like they actually mean it.
I haven't read any of Coulter's books, just a few columns, but if you would read Ann Coulter, you would see that she has these little things called footnotes all through her work. They refer to the research that has gone into her work. I dare to suggest that she has more research notes in one of her works than Chomsky has in, ah, all of his.

Is something wrong with Rush? Nobody is able to challenge his claim of being right 98.5% of the time. Or maybe he means right-of-center. Hmmm.

In any case, Atlanta-based radio host Neal Boortz (who is a Liberterian) challenged his listeners to provide evidence of bias at Fox News. Not the commentary shows, like Hannity and Colmes, but in the actual news reports. Those start with Uma Pemmaraju (or my favorite, Dari Alexander :liplick: yummy!) sitting behind the desk and reading what's on the prompter to tell you what's going on in the world today.

So Boortz started this... let me think... last spring? Late Winter? Almost a year ago. You know what? Nobody's proved any bias from Fox News, to the right or left. And yet there are websites and books devoted to reporting left-wing bias in the established media. Some are even from people who used to work for such networks!

As far as what's wrong with Chomsky, how about that he's an anti-American zealot?

No-name
04-01-05, 22:37
In November, Tom DeLay and the House Republicans voted to cut the budget for military housing by $500 million. This act delays new housing for 50,000 military families. Remind your friends in the military of this when the roof leaks next time.

No-name
04-01-05, 22:41
Check out this editorial from the Army Times: (more liberal media?) It's a bit dated (predating the last raise) but still valid.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php
July 02, 2003

Editorial: Nothing but lip service

In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.

No-name
04-01-05, 22:45
I cited Chomsky. You referenced the Media Research Center. We're even.

No-name
04-01-05, 22:51
Also remember that in March, Bush and GOP congressmen voted in new overtime rules which specifically cut the DOL's requirement to pay overtime in professional fields who have recieved "training in the armed forces."

Censport
04-01-05, 23:02
Gee sabro, do you think the fact that we're at war might have something to do with the budget?

Duo
04-01-05, 23:21
I haven't read any of Coulter's books, just a few columns, but if you would read Ann Coulter, you would see that she has these little things called footnotes all through her work. They refer to the research that has gone into her work. I dare to suggest that she has more research notes in one of her works than Chomsky has in, ah, all of his.



As far as what's wrong with Chomsky, how about that he's an anti-American zealot?

Yes she does, but we cheked up one a couple of her footnotes with one of my professors, and guess what, what she said by refering to those sources and what the sources actually said did not match.

Why is Chomsky anti-American, cuz he says how it like it really is, or cuz he has a different view ?

No-name
04-01-05, 23:37
What does that have to do with cutting housing funding and changing overtime rules?

Well anyway back to leftist ideas:
86 percent of the American Public say they agree with the goals of the Civil Rights movement. 83% agree with the goals of the environmental movement. 94% want federal safety regulations enacted on the manufacture and use of handguns Eight in ten believe health insurance should be provided equally. 62% want to change laws so that fewer nonviolent offenders go to prison. 85% support equal opportunity in the workplace for gays and lesbians. 58% support labor unions. (citations left off for length reasons)

Let's work on healthcare, poverty, emergency services, crime, and especially education.

Meanwhile conservatives would like to cut taxes for the rich. Erase gains in civil and women's rights. Deregulate industries in areas of worker pay, safety, rights, and pollution. Cut environmental protection. Sell off, our forrests, gas and oil reserves. Ease gun laws. Privatize social security. Send money to private and religious schools while they cut the funding for public education. And what's that PATRIOT-USA act about? You call Janet Reno a fascist, what if she had these powers? It's no wonder that since Reagan, any moderate Republican has to tack on "compassionate" to the conservative label.

I hear we caught al-Zarqawi. (Excellent. Maybe he knows where those WMD's are.)

Censport
04-01-05, 23:48
Yes she does, but we cheked up one a couple of her footnotes with one of my professors, and guess what, what she said by refering to those sources and what the sources actually said did not match.
In another thread, you said you would provide someone with that research from your professor. We're still waiting. Besides, "one a couple"[sic]? Out of what, thousands? That's still better than Dan Rather or Jayson Blair.

Why is Chomsky anti-American, cuz he says how it like it really is, or cuz he has a different view ?
I don't know if Chomsky has come out and declared himself anti-American (heck, who does besides Islamic terrorists?), but you can't deny that he is an anti-establishment extremist. Also, how do you know that he's telling it like it is? Can you prove it, or does he just have the same view as you do? Someone once told me that "Chomsky really makes you think." Of course, I couldn't help but reply "But he does he make you know?" Thinking is great, but proving and knowing are better.

Censport
05-01-05, 00:41
Well, you certainly consider yourself an expert on conservative views. Where the Sam Heck did you learn that? Obviously not from a conservative!


What does that have to do with cutting housing funding and changing overtime rules?
If you're spending everything on keeping an overseas war running, you have to cut back somewhere else. Just because it's U.S. government money doesn't mean that there's an endless supply. Maybe you could persuade Kerry or Edwards to vote for military budget increase after they vote for it?

86 percent of the American Public say they agree with the goals of the Civil Rights movement.
Ah, that was 40 years ago. Your point is what, that the remaining 14% are all conservative Republicans?

83% agree with the goals of the environmental movement.
...with the stated goals of the environmental movement. What about the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)environmentalists? Do 83% agree with the goals of ELF (Earth Liberation Front)? Ever notice that the people you see at environmental rallies are the same ones at anti-capitalist functions?

94% want federal safety regulations enacted on the manufacture and use of handguns.
What?!?!? You mean there are NO federal safety regulations regarding the manufacture of firearms?!?!? Riiiight. As for the same percentage applying to handgun use, I'd like to see your stats on that. How about all those great guns laws? Doing a lot of good, huh? Article (http://www.americandaily.com/article/6170)

Eight in ten believe health insurance should be provided equally.
80%? Provided by whom? Are you suggesting that 80% of all Americans want socialized medicine, or better yet, HillaryCare? What about Bush taking the biggest step towards socialized medicine in the country's history? Y'all have been awfully quiet about that (except to opine that it wasn't enough). Even Teddy Kennedy couldn't get that job done.

62% want to change laws so that fewer nonviolent offenders go to prison.
This is a left/right issue?

85% support equal opportunity in the workplace for gays and lesbians.
You mean that gays and lesbians are turned down for jobs en masse? First I've heard of it. What about the EOE or EEOC or whatever it's called?

58% support labor unions.
Once again, I'd like to see the survey. Labor unions are one thing, but labor unions becoming partisan political machines and forgetting to represent their members... Uh, hello NEA, Teamsters, Firefighters union?

And now...


Meanwhile conservatives would like to cut taxes for the rich.
It's the rich that pay taxes. It's the rich that invest their wealth in industry. If you don't pay taxes but want a tax cut, that's income redistribution.

Erase gains in civil and women's rights.
Absolute, complete myth. I seem to remember a teacher talking about a black student in his class who believed that if Bush were elected (2000) that the country would return to slavery. Sounds like you and that kid have the same sources.

Deregulate industries in areas of worker pay, safety, rights, and pollution.
Nope, waaaay nope, nope, and.... I think I read something about that last one not long ago. Let me see if I can find it.

Cut environmental protection.
See: BANANA, above.

Sell off, our forrests, gas and oil reserves.
You mean the private lands that Clinton confiscated during his term and labeled 'parks'? And wasn't it Clinton who sold our reserves as a political move, and then the oil went overseas? Japan, wasn't it? I don't remember CNN or NPR screaming about Bush selling our reserves.

Ease gun laws.
You mean fight the enactment of new laws which would prevent legal owners from using the weapons in self-defense, right?

Privatize social security.
I think that's a bloody good idea.

Send money to private and religious schools while they cut the funding for public education.
Black and Hispanic parents are overwhelmingly in favor of school vouchers. They want their kids out of underperforming public schools where teacher performance isn't even checked, much less rewarded/disciplined. Kids aren't passing? Lower the standards again! Do you have something against minority kids from poor families being able to attend private schools, or do you want to keep those schools for rich white kids, like Al Gore's kids, Chelsea Clinton, Kerry's kids, Edward's kids and the Kennedys?

And what's that PATRIOT-USA act about? You call Janet Reno a fascist, what if she had these powers?
I dunno, haven't read it. You? And yes, I do call Janet Reno a fascist. She didn't need the Patriot Act to violate court orders, kill children, raid private farms and kidnap a kid to ship to a communist dictator for use a propaganda tool. Oh, and then there's the blocking of investigations into her boss. I actually remember a new conference where she said, and I quote: "We're not going to investigate until we know all the facts." What the Sam Heck is an investigation for?!?!? And just think, Ashcroft hasn't committed any such acts, and he's had the Patriot Act.

We caught Zarqawi? COOL!!! Think we'll behead him?

Edited: Some days I just can't type.

No-name
05-01-05, 01:48
Got your attention. All those stats indicate that the American public is actually more liberal on specific issues than most people think. The media is actually less liberal than the american public at large. (Caveat: you can get stats to say almost anything.) That you can speak for black and hispanic parents is great. Tell me what else they want because here in California, they have resoundingly defeated voucher twice.

The point about the housing and the overtime pay is that Republicans don't have the line soldier in mind at all. Ten strykers, or one F22 could pay for this. (We could use 20 old Gavins for a bit and a couple of F16's until the budget crisis is over, or think of this: repeal one of those rich tax cuts?) The federal government doesn't pay your overtime (unless you work for them). Cutting the overtime pay for veterans actually costs the government tax revenue, but I bet these true blue vets are proud to lose that money.

I don't think BANANA, ELF or any other (wacko) Radical environmental group actually represents what real environmentalists, liberals and the democratic party thinks or does. It's just like the feces and piss throwing thing I didn't get to take part in. (Did ALL democrats do this, I missed it?)

I don't want to you to think that Duo and I are ganging up on you. So: The media is liberal. All democrats are bad. Liberal means stupid. War is good and anyone that questions that is a crap throwing pinko.

During the progressive era, it was the Republicans that often championed the causes we think of as liberal. T. Roosevelt. Republicans were there when the first workplace safety rules, child labor laws, food safety regulations and financial institution reforms were enacted. It was Eisenhower that integrated the Federal Government and the Armed Services. Liberal used to be a good word.

The Patriot act allows the government almost unlimited search, siezure, and arrest rules if the word "terrorism" can be attached to it. Forget warrants, habeas corpus or even trials. The feds can now check out your library records, health records, employment, tax and financial records without even telling you. This should upset every red blooded conservative. To this date some 4,000 or more have been detained by Ashcroft without charges or trial, under the act. I don't think Janet ever did that.

It doesn't help when feds do things that are illegal, stupid or wrong (Although the USA-PATRIOT act would have allowed their actions to be done secretly). Ruby Ridge and Waco. Nasty things that happened to innocent people who happened to be with fringe wackos that were dangerous and violating the law (granted that in Ruby Ridge entrapment was proven). Should have never happened, but ineptitude is not the same as fascism. (I don't think this is a Liberal/Conservative issue.)

Elian Gonzalez should have been returned to his father. It is too bad he (dad) wanted to stay in Cuba. But if we start taking Cuban kids away from their parents to give them to a distant relative in Florida, I think that's a bad precedent. Conservatives should be for parent rights.

Ken Starr did a thorough investigation of Clinton. He found the lie about sex. Thank God! I hate when presidents lie.

al-Zarqawi- I hope it is true- we should, but we won't. We will ask him a bunch of questions, take some video, hold him and then turn him over to the Iraqi government.

Hey, I gave you my summation of the Liberal Agenda. (And my take on the conservative agenda). What do conservatives want to achieve?

Also, can we get more opinions here? Duo, Censport and I could use company.

No-name
05-01-05, 02:08
Well, you certainly consider yourself an expert on conservative views. Where the Sam Heck did you learn that? Obviously not from a conservative!

Nope, waaaay nope, nope, and.... I think I read something about that last one not long ago. Let me see if I can find it.


My mother and most of her generation in my family were Republicans. (Democrats put them in concentration camps). I learned a lot at the dinner table. She became a member of the GOP state organization and a vice president in CWA (a Republican women's group) She threw neither pee or crap at returning vets. (After being a teacher for several years in an inner city school, she switched parties in the 1980's...the party left her, she says.)

The thing on the top of the GOP legislative agenda [http://www.rnc.org/] is the plan to ease regulations to help make big businesses more profitable and competative with foreign employers. This includes all the envronmental health, safety, pay, hours and benefits rules. This will save American jobs.

By the way, check out the GOP website. The agenda page makes them look like a bunch of tree loving liberals-- until you click on "learn more". What's up with you guys? Do you hate trees, poor people, minorities, women, and children?

No-name
05-01-05, 02:21
Btw: that's a great article about gun control. John Lott from the Washington Post (Not a Liberal Medium) (http://www.americandaily.com/article/6170) Check it out. Worthy of another thread?

California just banned the sale of .50 cal BMG rifles. Not that I own one or want one, but when was the last time you heard of one of these bulky, long, heavy weapons in a crime?

On the other hand, we don't need weapons like this. What do y'all think of gun control? We in the US are absolutely gun crazy, don't try to take my Mauser away. Chime in please.

What Lott was resoponding to: CCW Not Credible: National Academy of Sciences Highly Skeptical of NRA Concealed Handgun Laws
The National Academy of Sciences has released a report examining the impact of various gun laws, including the NRA’s pet project of forcing police to let almost anyone carry loaded, hidden handguns in public (CCW). The NSA was particularly skeptical of the NRA’s concealed handgun push, stating, "The committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases violent crime." The NSA study found that accurate research on what works to reduce gun violence had been made impossible by a lack of information on gun ownership and by scholars' lack of access to information like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' data on guns traced to crimes. The NRA and its supporters in Congress have long opposed collecting information on gun ownership and sharing the bureau's gun-tracing data, preventing researchers from determining the most effective ways to reduce gun violence.

Duo
05-01-05, 11:31
In another thread, you said you would provide someone with that research from your professor. We're still waiting. Besides, "one a couple"[sic]? Out of what, thousands? That's still better than Dan Rather or Jayson Blair.

I don't know if Chomsky has come out and declared himself anti-American (heck, who does besides Islamic terrorists?), but you can't deny that he is an anti-establishment extremist. Also, how do you know that he's telling it like it is? Can you prove it, or does he just have the same view as you do? Someone once told me that "Chomsky really makes you think." Of course, I couldn't help but reply "But he does he make you know?" Thinking is great, but proving and knowing are better.
Yes I did say that, but sadly no luck in finding my old hand outs, wish i would have kept them, but at the time i didn't much care, well in any case, i rather read Chomsky who actually gives some kind of logical explanations and has a certain logical thread to his thoughts rather than the rambling, accusations, and labeling of ann coulter and co.

Censport
05-01-05, 17:20
...i rather read Chomsky who actually gives some kind of logical explanations and has a certain logical thread to his thoughts rather than the rambling, accusations, and labeling of ann coulter and co.
Most people read or watch what they're comfortable with, which has always made me wonder about horror-movie fans. But it shows why our First Amendment is so important. When you look at 'right-wing media', have you noticed that aside from Rush Limbaugh, everything else is fairly new? And Limbaugh has only been around, what, 16 years? I've heard leftists say that Fox News, Rush and anybody right-wing should be banned from the airwaves. Gee, how inclusive and intolerant of them! Nobody on the right wants to take down CNN, we just want our side to be heard without being distorted. Some of us have suggested that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent keeping NPR on the air, since they don't practice equal-time policies. Could they survive in the private sector? I really doubt it.

But then maybe you're not old enough to remember a time when left-biased TV news was all that was out there.

Since you don't like Coulter's style, can I make a suggestion? If it's analysis and explanations you want, how about David Horowitz? He used to run with Chomsky's crowd. One of his websites is www.frontpagemag.com.

Censport
05-01-05, 18:28
Hey, I gave you my summation of the Liberal Agenda. (And my take on the conservative agenda). What do conservatives want to achieve?

Also, can we get more opinions here? Duo, Censport and I could use company.
Dude, I hate to tell you this, but I think the three of us have the most active thread on the forum!

It's not easy summing up conservative goals into something I can type during my breaks (I'm in the private sector, remember?). And that's one of the things that holds us back during the election season. Helen Thomas and her cohorts want our candidate to explain his plans in great detail and justify them at length. Meanwhile, all our opponent has to do is shout "FREE HEALTHCARE!" and he locks up entire blocks of voter demographics. And when your candidate is questioned on how he'll pay for such programs, he has one answer: "TAX THE RICH!" And since the wealthy are a minority (despite carrying the bulk of the tax burden), they can't out-vote the people who would benefit from the program.

Sometimes it really seems like everything on the DNC party platform can fit onto a protest sign. We call it "sloganeering" and we refer to Jesse Jackson as "The Sloganmaster". Tell me if any of these others sound familiar:

NO WAR FOR OIL
NO NUKES
WORLD PEACE
SOCIAL JUSTICE
NO TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT
FEED THE WORLD
BUSH LIED
ABORTION RIGHTS
GAY RIGHTS
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
MINORITY RIGHTS
RIGHTS FOR GAY MINORITY WOMEN WHO WANT ABORTIONS (sorry, guess I read too much Bloom County when I was a kid)

Now who doesn't want world peace, right? But it's how you get there that's important. Like our current situation: The Islamic terrorists have claimed that they will kill as many Americans as they can, anywhere they can, and that the only way we can stop them is if we kill them first. To me, the obvious solution is to kill them first before they can martyr themselves to get a bunch of virgins. But many on your side don't want us to kill these terrorists, and in fact some have even justified the terrorists hatred and actions. Our enemy refuses to accept a peaceful solution, so why do those who insist on finding one consider theirs a noble cause? Seriously, I'm scratching my head over that one.

Edited to add: Some conservatives do have idealistic goals, but it's hard to fit "Get lazy welfare sponges off their butts and into productive society so that liberal programs can work" on a protest sign. Maybe we should hire Jesse Jackson...?

As a conservative Republican, I tend to look at people as individuals than by races or sexual orientation. While I don't know that I've met a gay black Republican, I know several black Republicans and several gay Republicans. If you were to look at my parents and their neighbors, you'd see a lot of myth-busting. My parents have the old American cars, their neighbors have shiny new European cars and a motorcycle collection. Their neighbors are devout Christians, my parents only go to church for weddings and funerals. Both recycle. (My mother reuses the same paper bags every time she goes to the grocery store. "Paper or plastic, ma'am?" "I brought my own." She also washes and reuses Ziploc bags. How's that for conserve-ative?) Neither have SUVs. Guess who still uses the N-word? Nope, not my Dad, but his counterpart next door.

But that's why you invited me to this thread, wasn't it? To see what a life-long conservative thinks instead of reading about it in Newsweek? ;-)

As for me, I recycle, take the bus to work, have a Chevy sedan that's over 40 years old and gets better gas mileage than my 10 year old motorcycle (but the bike, a Triumph Daytona 1200, is a whooooole lot more fun!), and never attended a Klan meeting. ;-)

Here's a suggestion: Can we hit one topic at a time? I don't have a lot of time I can devote to this. Since you're a teacher, do you want to start with education?

In the meantime, here's a link to my favorite cartoon. I think you'll enjoy today's (1/5) panel: Day by Day Cartoon (http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Default.aspx)

No-name
05-01-05, 18:59
The last two days I was taking care of my family, all three came down with the Flu at the same time. Two cats are sick, too. So I was running around, cleaning up a variety of messes, cooking soup, making jello and shoveling some of the two feet of snow that fell. In between, I would jot down ideas on this thread. It's not the reason why my thoughts are so scattered. That's the way I generally think anyway.

Censport
05-01-05, 19:07
It's not the reason why my thoughts are so scattered. That's the way I generally think anyway.
Oh, I already guessed that! ;-)

Sorry to hear about your family. Even the cats, huh? Sounds like your house needs to be quarrantined!

No-name
05-01-05, 19:59
Sometimes it really seems like everything on the DNC party platform can fit onto a protest sign. Tell me if any of these others sound familiar:

NO WAR FOR OIL
NO NUKES
WORLD PEACE
SOCIAL JUSTICE
NO TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT
BUSH LIED
ABORTION RIGHTS
GAY RIGHTS
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
MINORITY RIGHTS
RIGHTS FOR GAY MINORITY WOMEN WHO WANT ABORTIONS (sorry, guess I read too much Bloom County when I was a kid)

Here's a suggestion: Can we hit one topic at a time? I don't have a lot of time I can devote to this. Since you're a teacher, do you want to start with education?


Excellent summation of the liberal agenda and a good hint at what is wrong with the Democratic party. (Lack of a clearly articulated message, lack of good leadership, lack of focus, and trying to keep too many people happy- including the fringe that wouldn't vote Republican anyway.)

Check out both party websites and you'll see this amplified. The DNC hasn't bothered to update the platform page or the message page in spite of it referring to the upcomming election. The GOP has a clear mission page, a clear platform page, and a message that appeals to the core middle class, middle american constituency...and it looks better.

Okay, education:

Education is underfunded. We need money. Not every problem is solved with money, but we definitely need mounds of cash. In California, we flat out need classrooms. I've been in portables since the Reagan administration. We also need better textbooks. We have computers, but most of my collegues know less than the kids about them. We have more fully credentialed teachers than ever before, but we make less pay, as you said, than auto workers. To keep them and recruit them takes money.We also need to tell these kids with a straight face that they all can go to college if they want.

The federal DOE should provide research into best practices, teacher training and supervision, and curricular materials. It also makes sure that national goals for education should be met. There is nothing really wrong with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) except that it doesn't really do anything (in CA we already had stringent standards for our teachers and curriculum and public accountability) and it provides no money. Teachers will argue about teaching to the test and cookie cutter education, but to me, it's just part of the job. The Republicans are absolutely right when they talk about education being a state responsibility and that unfunded federal mandates are bad. I work in special education and the paperwork created by IDEA is a mess that benefits no one. Any federal money that comes in has strings attach that usually create a job for someone, but they often don't directly help students. (With the exception of Perkins, TPP, Workabilitiy and other programs. Title 1 is good, but some of the money has to go to pay a coordinator.) In California, we would also like the Feds to chip in a bit more for the immigrant, illegal and otherwise, education. (I don't think it serves anyone to have uneducated illegal aliens running unsupervised during school hours.)

As for higher education, when we were in school anyone with a bit of talent, the grades, and a part time job could go to a State Unversity and have a reasonably loan to pay off at graduation. With cut after cut, fee hike after fee hike, this is no longer true. Although we still have the best universities in the world, we don't provide seats or tuition for every qualified high school graduate. If we want to be the land of opportunity, we better back this up. We tell every kid from kindergarten to high school that if they have the brains and desire, they can be doctors and lawyers and the President if they want to. When they get to HS graduation though, the story suddenly changes. Duo will tell you that everyone in Europe who qualifies can go to college for free. Sounds good to me.

Voucher programs don't work. Check out the research on Edison Schools, Cleveland, Chicago and other places that tried. Private schools don't want these kids, don't want the regulation and scrutiny that comes with pubilc money, and are not beyond cashing the check and booting the pupil after five weeks to keep the money. Research will also tell you that these students don't score any higher after one, two, or five years in private schools. (But look at the data carefully- religious and parochial schools will score lower, often lower than their local public counterparts, Prep and military academies will score higher. US News does an anual report that demonstrates this quite well and recommends that you take the amount that you would spend on tuition to a private school and invest in a house in a weathier neighborhood. Public schools in high priced neighborhoods are the best in the nation.

Philosophically, we shouldn't give money to private schools anyway. Let's use the money to improve the local public school. It is a parent's choice to send the kid there. We spend tax money on schools not just so that our own children will get a quality education, but primarily so that we will have an educated society. We need a mass of well educated humans to make a democracy function. It's supposed to be the great equalizer.

By the way, schools are not failing. Standards are higher than ever. Test scores are improving. Kids are learning and graduating. I've been doing this for eighteen years, and I see a marked improvement over the late eighties and early nineties.

Funny thing: I have eighteen years experience, four credentials and two masters degrees. But according to NCLB I am not qualified to teach two of my classes. You might be able to however because you have "real world" experience.

The center is where most people are politically. I think most Americans like the term "conservative," but actually are quite liberal in their thinking. I looked at your media list. I guess from the far right even the center (Moore and Frankin are lefties, Rather is gone.) looks like the left. John Stossel and Wolf Blitzer are awesome.

Duo
05-01-05, 22:30
But then maybe you're not old enough to remember a time when left-biased TV news was all that was out there.



Heh, funny you should say that, well I'm not american so I wouldn't know anyways, but I remember there was a time when TV was just a bunch of communist controlled propaganda :p Those were the days :okashii:

In any case, thx for the link, btw just out of curiousity, have u heard of this magazine called The Nation ? Furthermore, just also out of curiousity, by your beleifs is the US a better country than the rest out there, I mean is America the best country in the world, just curious about your opinion.

No-name
05-01-05, 22:44
... is America the best country in the world, just curious about your opinion.

I think it is. But I have only visited Mexico and Canada. I'm certain other places are nice, but I am entirely comfortable here. I am however always looking for ways of making it better. Any ideas?
Do you think Americans have an irrational fear of socialism?

No-name
05-01-05, 22:54
You know, all the other threads are kind of quiet now. I was hoping that we could generate some of that pre election energy those posts had. Even the Jim88 thing, the"Why are U not a muslim?" thread and the Urecco denials of the holocaust and the Rape of Nanking were somewhat fun. Problem is- neither of you are crazy. Censport, can you be a little more Rush-like in your extremism? I can try to be a little more Michael Moore-ish if it would help.

Censport
05-01-05, 23:41
Sorry Duo, I keep forgetting that you're not an American. What flag is that, anyway?

I find it curious that you've lived under communist propaganda and then willingly read Chomsky. Seriously. Many right-wingers consider Chomsky and his like communists propagandists. In fact, I remember reading about a viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11 in a former Soviet-controlled country. The country's leader (president, prime minister, grand poombah, whatever) walks out and is asked for his review by the press. He said (rough quote) "That was communist propaganda if I've ever seen it. And I should know!"

Heard of The Nation?!? :lol: Oh I should say so!

As for America's standings, it all depends on what you're looking for. If you think that everybody should have the same amount of stuff, regardless of their productivity, there other countries that live for wealth-redistribution. If you want a chance to start your own business and accept the risk yourself, like I have, I'm not aware of a better country.

When it comes to civil rights and equality, diversity of ideas and cultures (and more superficial measures of diversity, like skin color or ethnic background), equal opportunities (not equal results though, see above), economy, and choices of terrains and climates, it's hard to beat America. After all, people aren't exactly making their cars into boats in an effort to get to Cuba. Just look at all the people who risk their lives to get here. Whether it's Cubans packed onto a floating '49 Chevy, Mexicans hiking for days in the desert or Chinese dying in shipping crates, no other country has such an issue. If America was as bad as our detractors claim....

Hey, I think I just answered one of sabro's questions.

No country or system is perfect. Same for programs, wars or ideaologies. But whenever enthusiasts of socialism or communism are asked why yet another socialist/communist country has collapsed, you usually hear: "They didn't practice pure socialism/communism." And therein lies the problem: If a society has to be pure in order for a system to work, then the system will always fail. Society can't be pure or perfect. Free-market capitalism isn't perfect, but it works best with an imperfect society.

Censport
05-01-05, 23:47
Problem is- neither of you are crazy. Censport, can you be a little more Rush-like in your extremism? I can try to be a little more Michael Moore-ish if it would help.
:lol:
While that would be more entertaining for our readers, I'm not much of an actor. Or a singer, for that matter. Besides, we can find back-and-forth lobbing of political Molotov-cocktails anywhere. I like how we're learning from each other here, and perhaps those reading will learn something (other than new insults).

I regret that I missed those earlier threads. I'm new to this forum, so I'm still finding my way around.

PS: I'll print out your bit on education and read it tonight (I don't have internet at home) and respond tomorrow.

No-name
06-01-05, 00:19
Sorry my posts are so long.
It would be nice to get a few more people involved.
I would like to read a much wider variety of opinions. Especially from Europe and Asia.
I am a bit sheltered. I live in California, and politics out here are different that the rest of the country.

bossel
06-01-05, 00:50
What flag is that, anyway?
The flag is Belgian, his avatar Albanian, I think.


no other country has such an issue. If America was as bad as our detractors claim....
Err..., European countries maybe? There is quite a number of people going to Europe, as well.


Free-market capitalism isn't perfect, but it works best with an imperfect society.
Err..., free market capitalism? Does that exist anywhere on Earth? Surely not in the US.

Censport
06-01-05, 16:14
Err..., European countries maybe? There is quite a number of people going to Europe, as well.
Yes, you're getting our liberals devasted from the recent elections.

Err..., free market capitalism? Does that exist anywhere on Earth? Surely not in the US.
Oh? How's that?

Censport
06-01-05, 16:15
I live in California, and politics out here are different that the rest of the country.
Boy, there's an understatement! ;-)

bossel
06-01-05, 17:18
Yes, you're getting our liberals devasted from the recent elections.
Interesting, they live all over the world, but not in the US (very few immigrants from the US here)? Talking of an empire, eh?


Oh? How's that?
Well, it's not much more of a free market in the US than in the EU.

Censport
06-01-05, 18:35
Great piece on education, sabro. Since I'm not in that business, a lot of it went over my head. No need to apologize, we'll talk about sportscar racing and then I'll have an advantage.

Actually, that's part of my story. I never went to college, as I had an opportunity as a racing driver, and I jumped all over it. In fact, I didn't stop racing until I was 30. During most of that time, I was either working for or in association with Porsche. I still teach at "driving" schools (they're thinly-veiled racing schools held at racetracks) for Porsche and Ferrari clubs. Hey, it doesn't hurt to know wealthy people.

Eventually I had to grow up. I'm still working on that.

My sister went to all-girls Catholic school from puberty until she went to college. She still hates my parents for that. My folks tried putting me in a private school for one year, but I couldn't get along with the other kids, so I returned to public schools in time for high school. Now while my grades didn't improve while I was in that private school, I was able to coast all the way through high school without doing a bit of homework. Show up, take the test, go to work, meet my bandmates that night, play a gig, sleep a couple of hours, go back to school, repeat. My education happened in that private school.

Now my high school was a joke. Actually, my teachers were a joke and that experience has stayed with me. We had mostly teachers who were "Easy A's" and a few teachers who actually expected something from you. The other kids loved the Easy A teachers, because they could watch a film or write a one-page report on anything and get an A. But I knew at some point I was 'gonna hafta' support myself. I wanted to learn how to make a living! Alas, what I remember most about my high school were the lazy, incompetent teachers (who weren't going to improve no matter what you paid them and were impossible to fire) and the race riots. And the evening news, trying to report our riots without mentioning that they were race-based. Gotta be politically correct, you know.

When I moved back a couple of years ago, I drove by my old school for nostalgia's sake. It now looks like an inner-city ghetto school that you'd see in a bad Jim Belushi movie.

The main arguments I hear about education in Republican circles are these:

- Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it. Instead, teacher accountability needs to be improved. You may have the point on this one: If you can't fix the teachers you do have, hire better ones.

- Get the teacher's union out of the way. This brings me back to my earlier question about your union. It's the most powerful labor union in the country, but the union officials are benefiting more than the teachers. Way more. And not just in salary. What ever happened with whatshername who was buying fur coats, cars and throwing lavish parties with the union's money? Also, the union has been accused of behaving like the Catholic Church, in that it relocates bad teachers to bad schools because it's easier than firing them. Not that I'm equating bad teachers with child-molesting priests...

- Stop lowering test standards. It may not be happening in California, but it's happening elsewhere in the U.S.

Oh, and here's some quick clips:

We need a mass of well educated humans to make a democracy function. It's supposed to be the great equalizer.
I'm glad you realize this. On my side of the political fence, the left is often accused of dumbing kids down so they end up dependent on social programs, and therefore keep voting for the left.


By the way, schools are not failing. Standards are higher than ever. Test scores are improving. Kids are learning and graduating. I've been doing this for eighteen years, and I see a marked improvement over the late eighties and early nineties.
My experience is purely anecdotal, but I've noticed that the use of English has seriously deteriorated since the dawn of the Internet Age. Remember how we learned to write without the aid of computers, or the word processors and spelling/grammar checkers contained therein? But these kids today, I tell ya. ;-) And the worst abuses, interestingly, I find on the Democratic Underground site. And what about these reports of U.S. schools being behind the rest of the world?


Funny thing: I have eighteen years experience, four credentials and two masters degrees. But according to NCLB I am not qualified to teach two of my classes. You might be able to however because you have "real world" experience.
Well, real world experience is pretty handy. Think I could get a job in Driver's Ed?

I don't know about Wolf Blitzer's politics (but I'd still trade ya O'Reilly for him), but I believe John Stossel is a Libertarian. At my VWRC meetings, we've been talking about replacing O'Reilly and giving G. Gordon Liddy his own show instead. What do you think, too extreme? ;-)

No-name
06-01-05, 20:15
Driver's ed from a race car driver sounds pretty good. Sign me up.
We (a camp I work weekends at) do an adult "secret agent camp" for corporate groups every couple of months. Are you interested in giving some soft-handed executives a half day spy-like driving lesson? (We rent the cars and the California Speedway parking lot) check out http://www.secretagentcamp.com/ and protb.com

I've worked with NEA and CTA reps- none of whom pulls down more $ than an elementary school principal. I don't know how much the NEA president makes, but I'll look it up. The unions don't get much done because teachers tend to teach because they love kids. It's a profession formerly dominated by women, and so we get girls' pay. (Not as bad as it once was).

I will go against most of my collegues and say that teacher pay should not be the top priority. You will get the best and fastest gains from reducing class size, adding instructional time, changing teacher evaluation and training. Some reforms don't actually cost anything. But what kind of message do we send to kids when we send them to crowded, crumbling, leaky schools with tired underpaid teachers to read out of poorly written raggedy textbooks? These things cost money to fix.

Realize too that ACT and SAT scores are the highest they have been in forty years. (and more kids take them today). State tests given to kids at second, fourth, eighth, and eleventh grades have shown year over year improvement for the past eight years straight. More kids are taking AP classes and now most states require grads to pass proficiency tests to get diplomas. High school grads today take two years of science, two years of math (algebra and above), four years of English, three years of history/social science. The curriculum across the nation is far more stringent than what we went through. Teacher certification is also more stringent.

Private schools however can hire whoever they want. They don't have the same stringent requirements for curriculumn and they don't have to be accreditted. Many parochial and religious schools have no certification requirements, pay teachers far less and have more students in each classroom. They do however get to be selective about which students they service. We take whoever you send.

Our kids don't score as well in some areas as students in other countries. But we test all of our students. We don't exclude anyone. Nor do we tell them what life track they are on. Other educational systems formerly rate, exclude, track and weed out kids. We don't.

John Stossel is my favorite journalist- he's the guy that usually says "wait a minute, does this really make sense?"

Censport
06-01-05, 20:34
Most of the people I teach are soft-handed executives. Some of them aren't good listeners (and therefore aren't good students, as you well know) because they're not used to listening to anybody. They're used to being the ones in charge. I usually fix this by driving their car for a couple of laps and showing them what their car will do when driven per my instructions. Then it dawns on them that there's a reason I'm their instructor.

My Japanese teacher says that while her young students memorize faster, they can be harder to teach because they're always asking "why"?

"Why do you say numbers differently when counting thin objects?"

"I don't know."

"Why not?"

"It's always been like that. Why do you say eleven or twelve instead of oneteen or twoteen?"

"I don't know."

"Aha!"

Her adult classes, like mine, just accept that the Japanese do things their way and it's up to us to accept that and adapt to it. That's her take on it, anyway.

Those proposing smaller classes and longer class times (and year-round schools) make a good argument. But I've heard others counter that kids' attention spans can't handle such longer classes. What's your take on that?

Duo
06-01-05, 21:02
I think it is. But I have only visited Mexico and Canada. I'm certain other places are nice, but I am entirely comfortable here. I am however always looking for ways of making it better. Any ideas?
Do you think Americans have an irrational fear of socialism?


Hmmm, I don't know, I don't really agree about the US being the best place, but everyone obviously has a biased towards their nation,so i can understand. Yes, I do think Americans have an irration fear of socialism, mostly because they don't know what it actually is, and secondly because there are so many ppl there that blow it all out of proportion, and completely distort it.

Duo
06-01-05, 21:10
Sorry Duo, I keep forgetting that you're not an American. What flag is that, anyway?

I find it curious that you've lived under communist propaganda and then willingly read Chomsky. Seriously. Many right-wingers consider Chomsky and his like communists propagandists. In fact, I remember reading about a viewing of Fahrenheit 9/11 in a former Soviet-controlled country.
Heard of The Nation?!? :lol: Oh I should say so!

As for America's standings, it all depends on what you're looking for. If you think that everybody should have the same amount of stuff, regardless of their productivity, there other countries that live for wealth-redistribution. If you want a chance to start your own business and accept the risk yourself, like I have, I'm not aware of a better country.

When it comes to civil rights and equality, diversity of ideas and cultures (and more superficial measures of diversity, like skin color or ethnic background), equal opportunities (not equal results though, see above), economy, and choices of terrains and climates, it's hard to beat America. After all, people aren't exactly making their cars into boats in an effort to get to Cuba. Just look at all the people who risk their lives to get here. Whether it's Cubans packed onto a floating '49 Chevy, Mexicans hiking for days in the desert or Chinese dying in shipping crates, no other country has such an issue. If America was as bad as our detractors claim....



Well I'm Albanian ( small country south eastern europe) currently residing in Belgium. Umm, well I'm ashamed to admit this but I just read some parts of his book for a paper I had to do, so actually I am not very very familiar with hs work, but it just seems like an interesting set of opinions, I wouldnt mind reading more of him. As far as the immigrants and wat not, that's the same in EUrope, north africans drown everyday trying to make it to spain, before even from my own country people immigrating in small boats overpacked through the sea, many tragedies have happend, people just want to reach the west. Well, I'd say Europe is prolly just as good as the US for racial tolerance and what not, althought in the US i do feel more comfortable actually, here still there is a bit of xenophobia, well in Belgium at least. Something about opening ur own business and stuff, well my landowner is from the poorest regions of southern italy, came here while while ago, owns now appartment buildings, drives a benz and a porche, so..... and what about Canada, I'd say Canada is a really interesting mix between American and EUropean political systems.

Censport
06-01-05, 21:43
Ahhh. So your professor is having you read Chomsky and finding fault with Coulter. It's nice to know that college professors are the same in Belgium as they are in the U.S. *sigh*

Americans are used to seeing people from all over the world, hearing different accents and seeing different cultures. We're "The Great Melting Pot", remember? So it doesn't surprise me that you're more comfortable here. It does suprise me that people in other countries (even Japan) consider Americans to be intolerant or racist. If you're in America and you're from someplace else, no matter where you're from it's no big deal. "Oh, you're from Albania? Cool. Are you enjoying your stay?"

The left in America (the Democrats) don't seem to be afraid of socialism at all. In fact, they seem to love it! But conservatives don't like it for several reasons, not the least of which is people tend to take advantage of such systems and bog them down. In my state, we've tried a form of socialized medicine and the results have been disastrous. Sure, it's helped a few people, but many others abused the program. Everything from illegal aliens who didn't live in the state coming here for health care to people filing prescriptions and then selling the drugs on the street. Administrators were just as guilty of fraud as consumers. And every single attempt to reform the system has been met with lawsuits from leftist activist groups. Now our governor has to choose between dumping the system altogether or introducing heavy taxes on the citizens.

After seeing how a small piece of socialism has wrecked our budget, maybe you can understand why some of us aren't keen on embracing it.

Censport
06-01-05, 22:23
Back to the media for a second: Keep in mind that almost everyone you guys list as part of the right-wing media makes no secret about their views. Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, all those people are very up front in letting you know that they're coming from the right. The part that upsets conservatives is that most media people pretend to be from the center even though their work is clearly left-biased. If they would just come out of the closet and admit that they're liberals, it wouldn't be a problem because then audiences would know what they're in for.

A big part of the problem was pointed out by Bernard Goldberg (formerly of CBS) in his book, Bias. Those working in the Old Media have surrounded themselves with like-minded folks and subsequently lost their perspective. In other words, everyone they know is a liberal, so of course they think they're in the center. Sabro probably remembers a New York Times columnist who wrote of Nixon's election: "I can't believe he won! I don't know anybody who voted for that man." A classic example.

Now that right-wing voices can be heard in the media, it's becoming obvious to more people how left-biased the Old Media has always been. Which is just one of the reasons Fox News has more viewers than anyone else.

Sorry about getting away from education. Just wanted to post that while it was still on my mind.

No-name
06-01-05, 22:34
Those proposing smaller classes and longer class times (and year-round schools) make a good argument. But I've heard others counter that kids' attention spans can't handle such longer classes. What's your take on that?

Totally agree. But we need a lot more flexibility- block scheduling, tutoring, zero, seventh, eighth period classes. Saturday school. Not every kid can get what they need in a 30 hour school week. Some are going to need a lot more time and attention. Most kids need more than 178 days of instruction. (European and Japanese schools have about 230.) And I don't think anyone from 5 to 25 is designed to sit in a classroom. We need to break out of the traditional sit in rows and listen, kid factories we are used to.

About the "Melting Pot" thing. I prefer salad bowl. I don't want to get melted.

No-name
06-01-05, 22:44
Hmmm, I don't know, I don't really agree about the US being the best place, but everyone obviously has a biased towards their nation,so i can understand. Yes, I do think Americans have an irration fear of socialism, mostly because they don't know what it actually is, and secondly because there are so many ppl there that blow it all out of proportion, and completely distort it.

I like California, even though we have problems that other states I have visited- higher crime, taxes, workman's comp issues, traffic, smog... but I haven't lived anywhere else. I can't imagine not being close to the mountains, dessert and beach. or having great chinese, japanese, mexican, itallian, and american food within a few miles.

Can you cite any specific socialist programs that are successful for example.
I'm thinking that there is something wrong with the fact that the level of wealth you have can determine whether or not you survive a car accident or cancer.

Censport
06-01-05, 22:58
About the "Melting Pot" thing. I prefer salad bowl. I don't want to get melted.
Touche. I guess we are rather tossed in here.

If I'm not mistaken, don't Japanese kids attend Monday through Saturday?

bossel
07-01-05, 01:02
Can you cite any specific socialist programs that are successful for example.
That depends on what you call socialist. If you think that every form of public health care is socialist then there are numerous examples in Europe where it works. If you think that only totally free public health care is socialist then I haven't heard of any country (though it may exist) where this didn't lead to some severe problems.

No-name
07-01-05, 04:45
You can't say that the US is entirely "free market." Lots of public money goes into places that would make Adam Smith wince. Our tax system penalizes wealth. We have compulsory free education, from 1st grade through HS. (Most states don't require kindergarten, but no one charges for it). I think this is socialized education. We have some public funding of post-secondary education. We have limits and rules all employers must follow as well as protection for consumers and rules protecting competition. Most product need some kind of public okay to be sold or manufactured. Businesses need licenses and buildings need permits. Transportation industries follow lots of rules. We have some retirement funding (social security) that is minimal, and require unemployment and workers compensation insurance. We have a very basic safety net of health care (medicare) and a basic welfare system. Our banks, financial institutions, and publically traded companies must follow other specific rules. We give subsidies to certain industries and to agriculture. We have utility companies which are regulated private monopolies. Public funding provides police and fire protection. It is not "pure" capitolism, but also not close to socialism.

"Free" anything always come with a price to somebody somewhere.

bossel
07-01-05, 10:06
It is not "pure" capitolism, but also not close to socialism.
Just my point: There is nothing like pure capitalism or pure socialism anywhere in the world. Even North Korea or Cuba are not entirely socialist. Not to mention, that I wouldn't know what pure Socialism is. There are so many different varieties. But maybe if you define it carefully you might find some government somewhere that fits perfectly to a particular socialist variety.

mad pierrot
08-01-05, 05:14
If I'm not mistaken, don't Japanese kids attend Monday through Saturday?

Public schools only have classes Monday through Friday, but many kids come to school on Saturday for club activities regardless.

Censport
10-01-05, 19:07
You can't say that the US is entirely "free market." Lots of public money goes into places that would make Adam Smith wince. Our tax system penalizes wealth. We have compulsory free education, from 1st grade through HS. (Most states don't require kindergarten, but no one charges for it). I think this is socialized education. We have some public funding of post-secondary education. We have limits and rules all employers must follow as well as protection for consumers and rules protecting competition. Most product need some kind of public okay to be sold or manufactured. Businesses need licenses and buildings need permits. Transportation industries follow lots of rules. We have some retirement funding (social security) that is minimal, and require unemployment and workers compensation insurance. We have a very basic safety net of health care (medicare) and a basic welfare system. Our banks, financial institutions, and publically traded companies must follow other specific rules. We give subsidies to certain industries and to agriculture. We have utility companies which are regulated private monopolies. Public funding provides police and fire protection. It is not "pure" capitolism, but also not close to socialism.

"Free" anything always come with a price to somebody somewhere.
Holy smokes, sabro, do you realize how much of that sounds like something I'd say?!?!?

Here's an intersting article along that vein, albeit with an odd title. I think the Post ran the wrong header. In any case, it highlights the differences between states right here in the U.S.
NY Post article (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/37993.htm)

Back in a few....

Censport
10-01-05, 20:27
Here's another trivial, but still significant example of why I'm not fond of socialism/communism:

Let's trim our hair... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4157121.stm)

Ah yes, nothing stimulates freedom like socialism, communism and dictatorships, eh?

Now back to uh.... where were we? Is it time for a new subject?

No-name
10-01-05, 22:35
North Korea- a study in insanity. I read an article about how short the North Koreans are compared to South Koreans. I'll post it if I can find it again.

I doubt that most Democrats will want a North Korean style government or will agree with the hairstyle issue. (Undoubtedly, there will be a pro-North Korean buzz cut faction-- that we will by habit have to entertain, but it will not be by any account a majority.) BTW the DNC still has not fully updated it's website. Where are those Edwards' people?

Censport
10-01-05, 22:38
BTW the DNC still has not fully updated it's website. Where are those Edwards' people?
Ummm, at the hair salon, perhaps?

You really shouldn't feed me straight lines like that! :lol:

No-name
10-01-05, 22:55
They're going to Ohio, and then Pennsyvania, and then Missouri, and California and all the way to the White House! EEEEEEAaaaaaaaaah!

Censport
10-01-05, 23:23
PFFFFTTT!!! *cough*cough* HAHAHAHAhahahahahaha! *cough*

Oh great! Now I've got Sprite all over my computer screen! And who do you suppose is gonna clean that up?

No-name
10-01-05, 23:30
We are starting a government program for that. An unemployable inner city single mother, her job trainer, social worker, child care provider, driver, inspector and the program supervisor will be showing up, once you complete the online application for free computer screen cleaning and file a $15 application fee with the department of labor. You must also certify that you meet all safety and employment standards.

bossel
11-01-05, 03:22
Here's another trivial, but still significant example of why I'm not fond of socialism/communism:

Let's trim our hair... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4157121.stm)
Sorry, but what makes NK Socialist?
It's more like a party dictatorship with dynastic leaders. I never heard of a Socialist theory which proposed a dynasty (though it may exist, there are so many & I don't know them all).
Labels are nice & well, but to prove a point (if there was a point) they are usually quite useless.

BTW, from your link:
"It stressed the "negative effects" of long hair on "human intelligence development", noting that long hair "consumes a great deal of nutrition" and could thus rob the brain of energy."
Now that's a funny point. What would people in such a dictatorship need their brains for? They are not allowed to think for themselves, anyway. :?

No-name
11-01-05, 05:34
Can we send Queer Eye for the Straight Guy to NK?

I guess they would be way past socialists on the scale, having nationalized industry and outlawed private property. I'm not up on Marx, but did communism preclude a dynastic party dictatorship (of the slightly unbalanced?)

Censport
11-01-05, 18:00
Preclude? Call it anedoctal, but it seems to lead to it. What's the old saying? Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely?

So... since the CBS report came out, want to go back to talking about the media? Heh, speaking of absolute power, Rather went unscathed and gets to do more 60 Minutes work. Meet the Huey Long of Old Media....

bossel
11-01-05, 18:26
I guess they would be way past socialists on the scale, having nationalized industry and outlawed private property. I'm not up on Marx, but did communism preclude a dynastic party dictatorship (of the slightly unbalanced?)
Aha, we're narrowing it down to a Marxian form of Socialism.
I would say it does preclude a dynasty. AFAIK, Marx wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat. I doubt, that a dynasty (or a party dictatorship which involves almost solely professional politicians) can be called proletarian.

No-name
12-01-05, 00:57
I was an English major, not political science. So it's not my area of expertise.
but...What you might call proletarian before you hand them the reigns and what you would call proletarian after may be two different things. (per Orwell's Animal Farm) and Orwell was a socialist. So how could you assure that power once given would never be missused?

I don't think totalitarianism is exclusively left. Nor is barbarism, stupidity and ineptitude.

bossel
12-01-05, 02:24
I was an English major, not political science. So it's not my area of expertise.
Just like me, my minor is history.
But when someone, as in the case of Censport, tries to frighten people by telling how bad "Socialism" is, they should know what they talk about. Obviously that's quite often not the case.
You don't need to be a major in political science to inform yourself.


So how could you assure that power once given would never be missused?
Good question. Probably impossible. That's why I'd prefer a powerless (IE Libertarian) society. Sadly that probably wouldn't work either. Therefore a democracy with a few basic powers would probably be the best solution.

Proletariat should be easy enough to define: the working class.

Or as M-W puts it (#2 is the classical Marx view, I think):
1 : the lowest social or economic class of a community
2 : the laboring class; especially : the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live

No-name
13-01-05, 05:35
The guys that wrote our constitution took a lot of pain to divide power between different independent branches, and between states and the federal government, and to make representatives accountable through elections.

bossel
13-01-05, 08:23
The guys that wrote our constitution took a lot of pain to divide power between different independent branches, and between states and the federal government, and to make representatives accountable through elections.
Maybe not enough pain that they took. It seems, as if there are enough loopholes for the government to exploit. Even in the US misuse of power is not impossible.

No-name
13-01-05, 09:28
Well, they didn't invent, nor could they forsee: the Department of Homeland Security, the Emergency Powers Act, political parties, Political Action Committees, Campaign Contributions, the Electronic media...

My sloppy point should have been, It is a good idea to divide power and provide checks and balances. A democratic republic with adequate civil liberty protection could be structured, rules can be written...Can these ensure that socialism will be missued? What could be the harm in nationalizing the larger more important industries? or providing health care? Perscription drugs? Utilities? Housing? Building a transportation network? Could we do this without destroying capitolism's consumer responsiveness and self/greed motivation? Do we need the promise of profit to get to work, to pour on the creativity and entreprenuerial spirit?

Too tired to think...

Censport
13-01-05, 16:11
But when someone, as in the case of Censport, tries to frighten people by telling how bad "Socialism" is, they should know what they talk about. Obviously that's quite often not the case.
Oh now, play nice. I've yet to point out that you sound like a Self-appointed Expert on Everything, so let's not start.

Besides, I don't try to frighten anyone. I try to warn. You are responsible for your own reaction.

I can't remember who it was, but a couple thousand years ago someone pointed out that democracy can only last so long, because at some point people will figure out that they can vote themselves into the treasury.

Clearly, Socialism is the most vunerable system to such abuse.


A democratic republic with adequate civil liberty protection could be structured, rules can be written...Can these ensure that socialism will be missued?
I've yet to see anything that can keep Socialism from being abused. Bossel...?


I don't think totalitarianism is exclusively left. Nor is barbarism, stupidity and ineptitude.
Agreed. Which was my earlier point about fascism. It is a tool that can be used by any faction. You forgot to list corruption, or were you including that in ineptitude? ;-)

No-name
13-01-05, 16:43
You forgot to list corruption, or were you including that in ineptitude? ;-)

LOL...I don't know how I forgot that one, I've visited Mexico enough to know better.

Random thoughts:
Los Angeles just rewrote the city charter a few years ago. It used to be this "progressive era" document that gave very little effective power to the executive (mayoral) branch.

LA County has in recent years abandoned the idea of universal health car for its residents (not that they ever met that goal, but there is an inscription above the doors of USC/County General Hospital stating it.)

In CA, we like our initiative/referendum powers- lots and lots of propositions, recalling a governor...Schwarzenegger has threatened to bypass the legislature and go directly to the people if they don't get somethings done. Maybe we need a national power of referendum?

I don't really get the Reganesque idea of the wealth creating wealth. The sweat and ideas and raw creative energy of workers and entrepreneurs, the consumption of mass products by legions of consumers with disposable income, and the synergy of international trade have more to do with driving the economy than one rich guy and his Guatamalan house keeper.

What's our next topic? Censport suggested Media.

bossel
13-01-05, 17:38
My sloppy point should have been, It is a good idea to divide power and provide checks and balances. A democratic republic with adequate civil liberty protection could be structured, rules can be written...
Yep, I fully agree. Problem is, in a democracy rules can be rewritten, democracy can be voted away. There is no perfect political system (& probably never will be).


Do we need the promise of profit to get to work, to pour on the creativity and entreprenuerial spirit?
Obviously that's the way human society works.




Oh now, play nice. I've yet to point out that you sound like a Self-appointed Expert on Everything, so let's not start.
Playing nice, hmm? If I sound to you like that, it only shows that you have no clue of what I talked about. I said everybody can know this stuff, you only need to look things up. To quote myself: "You don't need to be a major in political science to inform yourself."


Besides, I don't try to frighten anyone. I try to warn.
Warn people of Socialism by pointing at things (in this case collectivist hair styles) that have nothing to do with it? Wow!



I've yet to see anything that can keep Socialism from being abused. Bossel...?
Socialism is a theory (edit: Or better: a whole bunch of theories), not more. I've yet to see it realised somewhere. Just because people tell you theirs is the only true Socialism, doesn't mean that it is Socialism at all.

Censport
13-01-05, 18:19
Warn people of Socialism by pointing at things (in this case collectivist hair styles) that have nothing to do with it? Wow!

Socialism is a theory, not more. I've yet to see it realised somewhere. Just because people tell you theirs is the only true Socialism, doesn't mean that it is Socialism at all.
There is no spoon? You're almost right. Socialism only works in theory. It's when someone tries to practice Socialism that problems arise.

I use examples such as Tenncare to warn people about Socialism. That example of collectivist hair style warns of the elitism and hypocrisy (look at Kim Jong Il's hair) that is often the result of over-centralized systems. It was also supposed to be funny. Sorry if you took it personally.

No-name
13-01-05, 19:50
Capitolism is only a theory too. It only seems to work with constant tweaking, adjustments to keep the game going and vigilant checks on social safety nets, worker safety, and environmental protection. You can't actually let anyone win, or even get too many of the chips or the game is over.

bossel
14-01-05, 02:10
There is no spoon? You're almost right. Socialism only works in theory. It's when someone tries to practice Socialism that problems arise.
I'm not aware that any country practiced socialism yet (you'll find socialist features in pretty much all countries, but does that make those countries socialist? Nope.). Not that I think it would work, anyway.


I use examples such as Tenncare to warn people about Socialism.
If those examples have nothing to do with socialism your warnings are useless. You only show that you have no idea of what you're talking about.



Capitolism is only a theory too. It only seems to work with constant tweaking, adjustments to keep the game going and vigilant checks on social safety nets, worker safety, and environmental protection. You can't actually let anyone win, or even get too many of the chips or the game is over.
& again I have to agree with you. Just like any pure form of socialism pure capitalism most probably wouldn't work.

No-name
14-01-05, 02:22
Bossel, we in the US look at the European welfare states with their lenient property and drug laws, high taxes and huge social benefit programs, controls on industry and business... both left and right here are puzzled. In your estimation does it work? What are the trade-offs? What can we learn from you?

Censport
14-01-05, 20:24
If those examples have nothing to do with socialism your warnings are useless. You only show that you have no idea of what you're talking about.
And you just showed that have no idea about Tenncare. If you're going to participate in a thread about American issues, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them before being condescending to new posters.

Since you use a sliding scale of relativism, how do you describe countries? If countries can't be described as Socialist, Communist or Capitalist, how should we refer to them? Are you capable of defining anything, or do you prefer to remain ambiguous?

Finally, are you going to bring anything to this thread besides personal attacks and the defense of Socialism?

bossel
15-01-05, 02:39
Bossel, we in the US look at the European welfare states with their lenient property and drug laws, high taxes and huge social benefit programs, controls on industry and business... both left and right here are puzzled. In your estimation does it work? What are the trade-offs? What can we learn from you?
Lenient drug laws? Maybe in comparison to the US, but depending on the country you're in, they can be quite strict. It all depends, really.
Anyway, most Western European systems seem to work quite well. There are problems, of course, but nothing yet which could threaten the systems as such. The only major problem I could foresee lies in the pension system. Some populations are aging rapidly, which means the system has to be reformed drastically in the near future.

I wouldn't dare to say what the US could learn from Europe, that's up to the US citizens to decide.
Eg. I'd see one advantage for the EU in that there is not such a problem with "working poor" as in the US, but as it seems even many of those "working poor" don't favour a system change (watched some reports about this stuff, don't know if the stated opinions are representative). That's democracy for you.




And you just showed that have no idea about Tenncare.
& you just showed again that you don't really read what I write. To quote myself again: "If those examples have nothing to do with socialism your warnings are useless." I hope, you know what the word "if" means. I didn't talk of Tenncare.
If you warn people of socialism by using NK as an example, then that is like crying "Beware of the weasel!" while there is a wolf in the woods.

& of course I don't have much of an idea what Tenncare is (other than that it some form of state-assisted health care). Therefore enlighten me: what makes it so socialist, which form of socialism does it belong to & in how far could it be exemplary for socialism in general (maybe even with some quotes from Marx, Engels or some other major socialist philosopher proposing such a system)?



Since you use a sliding scale of relativism, how do you describe countries? If countries can't be described as Socialist, Communist or Capitalist, how should we refer to them? Are you capable of defining anything, or do you prefer to remain ambiguous?
There are lots of definitions possible, because there is no pure system anywhere on the world (at least none that I'm aware of). There are socialist features in the US & there are capitalist features in NK. That's mankind for you: ambiguity.


Finally, are you going to bring anything to this thread besides personal attacks and the defense of Socialism?
Defence of socialism? Hmm, that almost asks for a personal attack, but I'll try to keep it civil: Obviously you have problems understanding me (or problems with your reading ability [Oh, damn it! Just couldn't refrain from that.]). :okashii:

No-name
15-01-05, 18:55
Well that liberal media just reported that the liberal CIA says that the war in Iraq increases our risk of terrorist attack.

No-name
15-01-05, 19:33
11/18/04 - MEDIA BIAS: MAJOR NEWS NETWORKS FARE POORLY ACROSS PARTY LINES - DEMS LIKE CNN & PBS, REPS LOVE FOX

PollingPoint respondents follow public affairs very closely. You’ve formed some clear opinions about news networks and their respective anchors – here’s what you’ve told us about the good, the bad and the just plain entertaining.

When asked what news network you dislike the most, your answers seemed to split among party lines. Perhaps explained by the falsified documents scandal during the presidential election, Republicans particularly dislike CBS. Among television news sources, over six in ten Republicans said CBS did the worst job in covering the news. Democrats felt most strongly about FOX news - 85 percent said FOX did the worst job covering the news among major networks.

From http://www.pollingpoint.com/results_111804.html

Censport check out www.affunnystan.com

from http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm#Backliberalmedia:
(Censport, you can skip the article- which seeks to prove that the media has a conservative/corporate bias, skim down to the stats and footnotes. That is where the real meat is.)
Summary:
The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits -- who do engage in noisy editorializing -- leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media's bias is conservative, not liberal.

Total Number of Think Tank Citations in Major Newspapers, Radio
and TV transcripts: (23)

Conservative 7792
Centrist 6361
Progressive 1152

Censport
17-01-05, 18:54
There's some good points in that article. It doesn't cover journalists who step outside the boundaries of ethics (Mapes, Rather, Gross), or how news organizations decide what topics they'll cover and what angle they'll play them from. Of course, it never asked the inevitable question of how 85% of Democrats could say Fox News did the worst job of covering news since 85% of Democrats don't watch Fox News, or the same for Republicans and CBS. I am surprised that the percentages were higher for Democrats than Republicans, considering where the scandals occur.

I remember the Fairness Doctrine. It was so fair, that it applied to radio but not newsprint, allowing The New York Times to spiral out of control. Of course, there are some on my side of the political fence who refer to it as the 'anti-free-speech-doctrine'. And they have their points. Equal time during a campaign is fine, but free speech otherwise.

Also, I remember how Nixon used the Fairness Doctrine for damage control. Just imagine what might've happened had there been true free speech (like today) on the radio back then!

Speaking of liberal talk radio, what do you know about this new guy? I rarely watch O'Reilly (he makes my skin crawl) but I watched that interview the other night. He sounds like a moderate, but he might be the voice you guys need. Personally, I'd like to see liberals have a place in talk radio (you own the tax-funded news outlet, NPR). The Left needs to learn how to be competitive in the marketplace of ideas again. Anti-Bush, anti-GOP and anti-corporate slogans only go so far. We conservatives have been able to talk so much amongst ourselves (not protest chants, but really heated debates) that we've defined our arguments and have effectively won in the arena of ideas. Now if we could just win in the arena of policy... *ahem*

Also, I want to see the Left have a place in talk radio so they'll stop trying to destroy or discredit the medium as they've tried before. Maybe this new guy will set the pace, as Al Franken and Jeanine Garafalo don't seem to be catching on.

But that brings us back to our old question of how the DNC is going to stop hemmoraging voters. You said before that there's a certain fringe faction you guys need to stop appealing to, as they wouldn't vote Republican anyway. Well, I disagree with one point in that. They won't vote Republican, but they will vote Green. Remember 2000? Gore (frickin' Gore, of all people!) wasn't Lefty enough to suit the far-Left BANANA enviromentalists/anti-capitalists, so they voted for Nader in droves. Nader, whose sole chant is anti-corporation. Well, American corporations, anyway. He could've taken VW to task for the Beetle, which was more dangerous than the Corvair it handily outsold, but there was no political advantage in going after a company outside the U.S. Evidence once again that the 'anti-establishment' movement was an anti-American movement.

Ah, there I go again... talking about cars.

So you guys do have to appease the far-Left fringe wackos to some extent, as they can split the party if all of their demands aren't met. That's the thing about the fringe of any political party or idealogy; they're not very good at negotiating. But what you do to secure their vote can endanger the votes of your moderates. The GOP doesn't have that problem (right now), as the bulk of its voting block agree on the agenda and fringe groups are at a minimum. (Is Pat Buchanan a fringe group? Oh, who cares, he'll always vote for himself.) Which I think supports my contention that the average American is conservative (opposite of your belief). Whether it's TV, movies or public schools, we've always been taught that liberals are the nice guys who are concerned about the environment, poor people, etc., and that conservatives are greedy rich corporate executives, which is why so many people think of themselves as Democrats without ever comparing the issues.

As for the current trend of media buyouts, I think it's fair to say that it disturbs everyone, regardless of politics. Nobody is in favor of monopolies (unless it's their monopoly) and it looks like we're headed to there. At some point, we'll see the federal government step in because, as we all know, only the federal government can have a monopoly in America.

No-name
17-01-05, 19:13
I think the actual "bias" of the media is not best defined by the left-right politcal axis.
They want viewers and readers and they don't want to offend sponsors. This created journalism that is:
- event centered or commonly called "bang-bang" rather than process centered. Also makes news disaster and crime centered.
- scandal centered. If they have dirt they will run it.
- crisis centered. Panicky toned... Storm watch 2005! Team coverage at 11! If it is not a crisis why buy a paper? Why watch?
- Image centered. If they have a good clip, run it over and over.
- Celebrity centered. Ben and J-Lo are still apart? OH MY God!
- Dumbed down. If we can't cover it in 30 seconds or on three pages, leave it out.
- Coporate friendly. (See 60 minutes and Big Tabacco in "The Insider")
- Homogeneous. Everybody reports nearly the same stories in the same order.
- Local centered. No need to report on things too far away.
- Big city centered. Where most of the big outlets are, so are the reporters and camera men.
- Filled with filler. Cutsie human interest, flavor of the week stuff.

They sell it. We buy it.

Hey Censport, check out that Al-Quida thread. I'm actually feeling pretty right wing today.

No-name
17-01-05, 20:17
Michael Moore's books and movies appealed to a wide audience not only for their point of view, but because they are good entertainment. Rush isn't popular just because he is right (wing) but because he is good at what he does. Al Franken hasn't figured out how to do what he does, maintain high quality and be funny. People won't listen to his spiel just because he is Al Franken. Right now, people will buy political talk, books and TV, from either side-- but only if it isn't boring (are you listening Al Gore?).

Censport
17-01-05, 21:09
I think you've nailed the media (especially the local news) quite well. The panic and shallowness that were once left to the tabloids has now become the mainstream. I got pretty sick of the O.J. trial, then the Scott Peterson trial, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake... WHEN WILL IT ALL END?!?!? Make Greta stop!

And Al Gore isn't that boring anymore. I don't just mean the 'angry preacher' speeches, he's actually pretty funny too. I remember a clip when his microphone came loose....

No-name
18-01-05, 18:52
Well Dean wants to be the new DNC chair. Make me want to scream.

The DNC must consider why in the south and mid-west more newly registered voters, especially 18-25 year olds, voted for the other guy. The GOP made significant gains with the young, the working class, the poor and most minority groups.

Yet if you look at surveys from Annenberg and Gallup, most (over 60%) Americans hold views that are politically liberal. Especially on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, education, the environment, taxes, gun control, social programs, health care...people will pick the liberal side of the issue, and then identify themselves as moderate or conservative. These people are not big corporations. They will never have to worry about capital gains taxes, the death tax, nor will they ever benefit from most of the tax code loop holes. Republican poicies will continue to erode their rights at work, protections on the environment, funding for education and programs that help the poor. (Not that the democrats promise anything better.) Most of these people belive that conservative means moral and traditional. Liberal simply is neither cool nor macho.

I still think it is amazing that veterans who no longer qualify for overtime pay-- specifically because they are veterans due to Bush's labor department rules change would ever consider voting for the guy. That rule change was petty and mean spirited. (and it cost us tax revenue.)

I would give some accusation about the party being in bed with big business, but I can't keep a straight face. Look at where most politicians end up when the leave office (to spend more time with their families?)...now how can I get a job like that?

Censport
18-01-05, 19:44
As you've said before about surveys, you can always tweak them to get the results you're looking for. Plus, it's impossible to get a multiple-choice questionnaire ("How is important is preserving the environment to you? 1) very important, 2) moderately important...) to accurately account for people's views.

Like I've said before, the difference lies not as much in what Americans want, but how to get there. Liberals rarely "own" an issue. As for determining the 'liberal side of an issue', once again, I don't think you'll accomplish that with a superficial questionnaire. Should we get guns out of the hands of criminals? Of course. How is that the liberal side of an issue? It's when you get beyond the surface, such as should we make it harder for private citizens to purchase guns or should we do a better job of enforcing the guns laws we already have that you find political differences.

A lot more people are affected by the death tax, or any inheritance tax, than you'd suspect. Many, many 'Mom & Pops' businesses exceed the $600,000 minimum. Also, it's simply an envy tax. I'm for a flat tax, even though my taxes would increase.

Yeah, politicians have it good! Great health benefits, retirement packages to die for, vote yourself a pay raise.... Too bad Clinton & Condit messed up the intern benefits. One of my old classmates is now the councilman for our old neighborhood. I'll ask him your question if I run into him at a reunion or something. I'll bet there's a secret handshake involved....

PS: Great pun. Dean... scream... :lol: But hey, who's your pick for party chair?

Too bad you guys didn't run Lieberman, but I guess being anti-war was the party's issue.

No-name
18-01-05, 22:27
Dean will do fine (yeeeeeeeeaaaaaaw!). At least he is reasonably voter savy. Who else is there? (Obama is still an outsider).

All though it does matter how you ask the question, most Americans favor gun control, access to abortion, and liberal social programs. Questions whose answers would define them as liberal continue to lead in polls.

Real policies like the death tax, like capital gains, like not engedering some kind of dynastic control of the wealth of the nation have been part of American taxes since the beginning. One measure of an industrial country is its distribution of wealth. We keep track of this gap, we rank nations according to this gap, and it shows who the party in power has at heart.

Historically the gap has remained somewhat constant, and was less then that of Europe (Until after WWII-- Sweden now has the most equal income society) The disparity increased during the Jackson "age of the Common Man" and during the mass immigration of the 1890's. In 1896 it took a big jump with McKinley's election in 1896, but decreased during the depression and WWII. The gap increased again during the "business friendly" Reagan and Bush #1 administrations. And so the social class this party has taken to heart would be...? We are now one of the most stratified societies in the western world.

In the 1950's a physician made 2.5 times what a unionized laborer made. Today it is more than six times. A clothing firm manager used to earn fifty times the salary of an average employee, now it is 1500 times. An executive in the US used to make thirty times what the average employee made, now it is over 2000 times.

Let no billionaire be left behind. Trickle down on us, oh great paper hanger. As the national debt mounts, oh cut the evil sin of wealthy taxes. Give the rich what they want and we shall one day snack upon the great crumbs of cake.

Thinking aloud: NRA says that 2 million people successfully defended themselves, their property, or someone else with guns (I think in a year..?). Hmmmm. (I haven't shot anyone yet.)

Censport
18-01-05, 23:38
WOWZA! What happened to your description of the U.S. tax code as penalizing wealth?

Lessee, a doctor making 6 times more than a unionized laborer? What's wrong with that? A doctor has to go through a whole lot more than signing on with a labor union to get his job. Clothing firm manager? Are those average employees located in the U.S., or Indonesia? (And if they're in Indonesia, where are they now? *ouch!*) Same for the executive. Where are his employees? If you're talking about employees working exclusively in the U.S., I'm gonna have trouble believing those stats.


One measure of an industrial country is its distribution of wealth. We keep track of this gap, we rank nations according to this gap, and it shows who the party in power has at heart.
Ah, but that's only ONE measure. Some of us measure a country by its opportunity for economic growth. If wealth redistribution were the only measure, countries such as Canada would be ahead of us, eh? The Carter administration would be remembered as our country's finest economic hour. Ah, but it took the capital gains tax cuts of JFK and Reagan to revitalize the economy. As far as who any party has at its heart, the answer is simple: itself!


Thinking aloud: NRA says that 2 million people successfully defended themselves, their property, or someone else with guns (I think in a year..?). Hmmmm. (I haven't shot anyone yet.)
Well what are you waiting for?!?!? Get to work! ;)

No-name
18-01-05, 23:59
Stats are stats. Those stats (except for the clothing one- which includes offshore employees) are for the US. Japanese firms by contrast pay executives only 160 times average base (in 1998). The US stat was for top executives-- CEO, CFO types (Jr. execs obviously make less) including all compensation vs. base average wage- which is about half of the real average wage (if you include benefits). I got the numbers from separate econ sources, so they actually measure something different. And definitely it is just ONE measurement. Yes Canada, most of Europe, and Japan are ahead of us. Sharp eyes.

The doctor pay thing-- didn't mean to slight doctors, but workers used to make proportionally more. Households used to live on one income. Now it takes two...(especially in the soccer-mom middle class). I wish I made what others with comperable educations (MA's) make.

I'm not backing off my point-- The US tax code has always penalized wealth. We have looked down on old money, inherited wealth, and even in the current friendly climate, the rich can't afford to die without a good lawyer.

Gun control- I always doubt the stats here, what does it mean- certainly not shooting the person in 95% of defense cases. But does this make me safer, or am I likely to be that Japanese exchange student who was gunned down in Texas about ten years ago during holloween? Knocked on the wrong door.

As for shooting anyone-- I'm too near sighted to hit anything moving with any certainty. Tell the bad guys to wear bright colors and stand still.

Censport
19-01-05, 20:39
Canada, the economic powerhouse. Whoooaaaa. ;)

I remember the event with the exchange student. Terrible, terrible tragedy. I hope you're not so near-sighted that street signs are a problem for you. Winding up in the wrong neighborhood can really ruin a guy's day...

No-name
19-01-05, 22:53
We look at distribution of wealth as one measure, like GNP and per-capita income...both mean little if the wealth of the nation is concentrated among the few (as it is in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria). The US may have a higher GNP and per capita income, but many people may not be sharing in that wealth.

What's kind of funny is that I feel perfectly at ease in East LA where I grew up. I know in my head it's the "wrong neighborhood" but I feel perfectly safe.

(I think they should allow older near sighted guys to carry short barreled scatter guns. Their broad spread and short range should make everyone around me safer.)

Censport
20-01-05, 00:21
I noticed you mentioned Sweden earlier in regards to income equailty. First, is that really fair? Should the sloth-like counter attendants at McDonalds make as much as, say... their district manager?

Secondly, Sweden is a small country that is fairly homogenous. Like Japan, it is easier to have such control. Trying to run the U.S. (or the world) in the same manner as Sweden or Japan would be like trying to fly a Boeing 777 as you would an ultralight. Or vice versa. They don't turn the same, climb the same, etc. Which could lead into why I don't like the "one world government" theory, but let's save that for later.

Suffice it to say, we're coming at this from different perspectives. There are those who define fairness and equality by opportunity, others by result. This really came to light in the 2000 race. But as I've said before, if the result will be equal regardless of input, then work ethic will be a thing of the past. No incentive, no growth.

Is it fair that top execs get fat bonuses while convincing their employees to work for less just so the company will stay afloat (as in the case of American Airlines in 2001)? No. That's where disclosure comes in handy. Those pilots and attendants found out and handed that guy his butt. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Life tends not to be fair, and society tends to be imperfect. Given those conditions, I'll take equal opportunity over equal result any day. After all, guaranteeing equal opportunity is a much more practical goal.

If someone can figure out a way to perfect society (without killing off vast numbers of the populace), keep work incentive alive and maintain the potential for economic growth, then MAYBE wealth redistribution can work. Good luck with that...

I can't remember if I've said this before, but my belief is that those of us who can help those who truly can't help themselves have a moral obligation to do so. BUT those who are able to help themselves have a moral obligation, to themselves and others, to do so.

I know what you mean about locations. I'm comfortable walking or riding the subway in NYC; the only time I've been mugged was in Birmingham, Alabama. Although one night a homeless guy walked up to bum money just as I happened to be getting a sword out of my car (Shinkendo class). You should've seen him run! It took me a second to realize what had happened, then I couldn't keep from laughing the rest of the night.

No-name
20-01-05, 08:16
I can't say I disagree with you on any of the above points. For me, it's never about equal results. I don't want everything the same, everything homogeneous, and nor do I want anything without struggle or hard work.

Life is not fair, and everyone does not have the same height, the same intelligence, the same character, the same good looks. But here in America we're all equal right? But do we all play on a level playing field? That we all have an equal opportunity? That the sons of old money have the same shot at harvard as the sons of lettuce pickers, or that some poor working slob that gets sick will have the same access to quality health care and possibly life that some hollywood actor? Or that some guys will work hard all their life, honestly pouring their sweat and creative energy, get little compensation and lose their pension and job in some corporate profit move? That the rich have worked for every penny they have and the poor are just stupid and lazy? That corporations will act in our behalf, with not profit, but the good of mankind in mind? (Enron, Tyco, Siverado S&L, Qualcom and Mission Energy were flukes.) When execs make hundreds of times what the guy who actually does the work makes, I don't know if that is fair. I don't know if it fair that our prez makes less than the MLB minimum, or that teachers make less per day than movie extras. Do the students in my classroom have the same shot at the brass ring as the Bush twins? I tell them that if they work hard, that they can do anything. (Talent not withstanding) Am I lying? I don't see any yellow brick roads leading to a perfect munchkinland. But I do think that the average working Joe has to have someone in Washington on his side. (And it's not W)

Censport
24-01-05, 18:05
Well, you were off to a good start...

A little perspective: God isn't fair, but we're expected to be perfectly fair? (No, I'm not a practicing Christian. Feel free to insert Mother Earth, Allah, Buddha, Oprah, or your deity of choice.)

No-name
24-01-05, 18:27
Fairness is something to work toward.

I think God is fair. Maybe not in this life, but on the final balance sheet... and don't ask me for proof.
Either that or we are all scared naked hairless primates.

Censport
24-01-05, 20:31
Don't worry, I won't demand proof. I'm sure I'll get all the proof I need one day.

So.... what's next?

No-name
24-01-05, 20:43
What about medicine? I saw Keifer Southerland on "Inside the Actors Studio" yesterday, and he was touting the healthcare of his native Canada. (His grandfather was voted "Most Noteworthy Canadian in History" or something, for setting up the system.)

The whole Bill and Hillary's wild plan failed to even make it to vote because clever Republican ads scared us away. (Oh NO-- it's like Communism!)

My opinion: maybe it wasn't the best plan, but that's why congress passes laws- I'm certain that one of them has a brain and could come up with a workable plan. I think it is a crime that people are suffering and dying because we can't put a plan together.
Who should pay for it? People, businesses... we already pay. Just make it...fair?

Censport
25-01-05, 00:11
It's a good thing HillaryCare was stopped cold. I don't think the references to it as a Marxist health plan were inaccurate, but somebody on the forum insists that I don't know what I'm talking about whenever he disagrees with my opinion. (Hint: Not you, sabro.)

Yes, it was a wild plan and a HUGE step. That drastic of a measure wasn't needed. Now I know that certain Democrat lawmakers want to control the nation's healthcare and have aired advertisements to scare us into thinking that they're the only ones who care about us and are the only ones who are wise enough to provide care for us.

Then I go to the DMV....

If the government controls the health care in this country, it won't just be Democrats. Republicans will have control too. My concern is that it'll turn into another Social Security, and be pilfered into ruin by both sides.

The private sector has brought medical science to a level only imagined by sci-fi writers (I'm still waiting for the day when a doctor can hold a lupe-sized instrument over me and complete the diagnosis, ala Star Trek). How about cutting out all the John Edwards lawsuits? People are suing if they don't like the results. Doctors are performing every test under the sun to every patient, regardless of symptoms, all because they might get sued for not considering every possibility, no matter how ridiculous.

I'm not advocating the obstruction of all malpractice lawsuits. But by rough estimates, over 60% of them are frivolous. That could reduce the cost of medical considerably, don't you think?

Personally, I think that tort reform is desperately needed here. I've been in retail stores when black people have tried to bait clerks into a race-based lawsuit. People are hijacking justice to use as a lottery! Not only is it abusive of the system, it also prevents others from getting their day in court.

Oh wait, medicine.... sorry.

I think someone on Capitol Hill can come up with a plan. Probably Frist, but he isn't pushy enough. Kennedy and his ilk are too good at tantrums and obstructionism. For that clan, it's all about politics all the time. Will he listen to Frist? I doubt it. After all, wasn't it Pelosi who, after the entire AMA concluded that there was no medical need for partial-birth (third term) abortions, stood in front of a clump of microphones in a national press conference and called partial-birth abortions a necessity? "You're a doctor? I don't care! I'm a United Satates Senator and that means I know everything!"

Now I really don't have a stand on abortion as a whole, but there's nothing I've read that justifies partial-birth abortions to me. Especially having it paid for by taxpayers.

Oh wait, medicine.... sorry.

So... what do you think we need to do to make the system fair?

No-name
25-01-05, 00:24
If Marx could design a better moustrap, then let's use it. The dreaded Hillary plan was a start, what was the Republican (let them eat cake) counter offer? The fact that the working middle class doesn't have access to affordable health care is criminal. The poor have state and federal programs that barely function and are the constant victims of fraud. It affects jobs, if affects productivity and the economy.

I don't have enough brain cells to devise a system better than what we have, but I know there has to be one out there. I have heard complaints about Canada, but they are the same complaints that I have about my HMO. (as a teacher, it is supposed to be one of the best plan, but it takes forever to see my doctor, I have to see him before I see a specialist, hard to get through on the phone, cancelled appointments...)

No-name
25-01-05, 04:53
Suggestions of where to go:

Does the GOP lie?: We could also look at why the past few Republican administrations have promised a smaller government, balanced budgets and tax cuts but have actually raised taxes on the working poor (while cutting services) and some middle class, had record deficits, and bloated the size of the fed-- While Ol Bill Clinton actually had surpluses, shrank the ranks of the federal work force, had the smallest growth in the national government since Ford, and raised taxes on neither the poor nor the middle class. Taxes have shifted since the Liberal tax code days of Nixon and Ford, from the big corporations and big business and the wealthy (especially the dead wealthy-- we used to like to tax them) to the middle class and small businessmen. Fiscal conservatism and fighting for the little guy is not evidently a GOP priority.

Did W lie?: We could ask if the whole WMD thing was a lie to get us into the war, or were we hoodwinked, or maybe if changing the justification of why you are fighting in the middle of the war is okay-- even if it was a pre-emptive strike. After all the justification for the civil war- from re-unification to abolition- changed more than halfway through the conflict. I remember the charts and photos and Powell at the UN connecting the dots. I remember the US dismissing the idea of more inspectors as a smokescreen. That sanctions and inspectors had not worked and Sadam was a serious and imminent threat. I also heard on several occasions how Iraq was linked to al Qaeda and 9/11.

Was the lie worth it?: We could look at the cost of Iraq- $105 Billion this year, plus however many soldier's lives, plus our credibility in the world community (see http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6857387/site/newsweek) and ask "Is it worth it?" W is asking for $80 billion more...

Of course the answers won't matter, second termers don't have to look at polls or think about re-election, or the truth or war dead.

Censport
25-01-05, 18:23
Does the GOP lie?
Oh boy.

It seems everybody has their own definition of a lie. Politicians by nature are expected to make promises, not all of which can be kept at a later date ("Read my lips..."). Some would call that a lie. Sometimes a president can repeat the same information (WMDs) that has been said by the preceding president, most of congress and the overwhelming bulk of the intelligence community, but only he is singled out as a liar when holes of doubt are poked in that information. But if someone uses phony witnesses and provides unsubstantiated third-person accounts as testimony (Kerry, 1971) and states he was somewhere he wasn't (Christmas in Cambodia), anybody who stands up to defy that gets their private lives scrutinized and is accused of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

And what about a president who lies under oath to deny his victim her day in court under a law he signed? What about a president who uses his staff and wife (aka co-president) to publicly slime another woman and accuse her of being a mad stalker? Think they would've stopped had it not been for the DNA sample on the blue dress?

I remember how the press gushed about the brilliance of the Clintons; how Bill could remember phone numbers from 20 years prior, how Hillary could name the lobbyists she worked with.... until they were under oath! Then they couldn't remember a thing! Heck, Hillary couldn't even remember where she left the Rose Law Firm records!

Why do you think only Republicans are capable of lying?


While Ol Bill Clinton actually had surpluses,
He never actually had surpluses. There was a projected surplus, but the tech bubble burst, NASDAQ dropped, people were losing their jobs to overseas production, etc., and Clinton never did a thing to stop any of that.


shrank the ranks of the federal work force, had the smallest growth in the national government since Ford,
He slashed the military. Period. He cut staff and supplies to a dangerous level. You're going to tell me he cut social programs...?


and raised taxes on neither the poor nor the middle class.
In 1993, Gore cast the tie-breaking vote on the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. Over-tax the people who finance this country and its industries. Great plan, just great.


Taxes have shifted since the Liberal tax code days of Nixon and Ford, from the big corporations and big business and the wealthy (especially the dead wealthy-- we used to like to tax them) to the middle class and small businessmen.
We're taxing the people inheriting from the dead wealthy. We've already discussed this. It's their money, it doesn't belong to the Federal Government just because the person who owned it before can no longer defend themselves.


Fiscal conservatism and fighting for the little guy is not evidently a GOP priority.
And it's the DNC's?!?!? Coffee time! Neither party is fighting for the little guy. They're fighting for their lobbyists and major campaign donors. Okay, the DNC is also fighting for their pet extremist groups, like ELF, NOW, ANSWER, Move-On, etc.

Something I figured out early on (8 yrs old) was that the little guy has to fight for himself, regardless of where he lives on this planet. Each party makes its promises, but if the GOP represents the rich and the DNC represents the poor, then I'd say that at least the GOP is the more honest party, as they don't sell their constituents down the river for political power.

In America, we have private sector groups like AOPA (one of my favorites), which fight for the rights and liberties of their members. And unlike labor unions, AOPA (and their like) HAS to listen to their members and not a particular political party or the organization itself would fall apart.

Which brings up another difference: While leftists try to associate the KKK with the GOP, and the KKK tries to pass itself off as having conservative Christian values (hello - Christ was a Jew) as a marketing ploy, the GOP obviously doesn't listen to the KKK. But could you imagine the DNC ignoring all of the little whacko groups that are pulling it in so many directions? Have you seen the people showing up at these protests? Scary to think that so many of them are licensed drivers.


Did W lie?
Don't we already have a few threads covering this?


After all the justification for the civil war-
*Ahem* The war between the states. A civil war is when two factions are fighting over the same power. Also, the southern states had the legal right to secede. The constitution was later changed to prevent that from happening again. Not that we haven't talked about giving y'all to Canada. Most of Hollywood already works there anyway. And y'all talk about taking jobs out of America.... Hahaha!

After y'all won, you wrote the history books to state that the war was fought over slavery and slavery alone. But poor farmers don't fight over plantation owners' ability to own slaves. But they do fight for political representation after providing so much of that nation's food and resources only to be oppressed. Yes, we were treated like dumb hicks back then too. We've come a long way, no?


That sanctions and inspectors had not worked and Sadam was a serious and imminent threat. I also heard on several occasions how Iraq was linked to al Qaeda and 9/11.
There's no proof they had worked. In his State of the Union Address, the president stated that he didn't want to wait until Saddam was an imminent threat, as then all discourse and action would be too late. He also mentioned the human rights violations in that same address, well before we invaded. Saddam did have links to al-Qaeda. Whether he had connections to 9/11 is dubious but moot: We didn't proclaim war on al-Qaeda alone, but terrorism and all those who supported it. Shoot first and check their membership card later.

And don't forget: We've destroyed over 400,000 tons of weapons that Saddam wasn't supposed to have under the 1991 UN cease-fire agreement. WMDs? No, I guess they'd be classified as WADs (Weapons of Average Destruction).


We could look at the cost of Iraq- $105 Billion this year, plus however many soldier's lives, plus our credibility in the world community
Or we could look at the cost of not taking Islamic terrorism and dictators seriously - 3,500 dead in NYC (my sister was almost one of them), D.C., the two embassies, the USS Cole, and the first WTC attack, 40% of our economic downturn (recession, whatever), plus our reputation among terrorists for not fighting back. What was it Clinton kept saying every time we were hit? Oh yeah - "I promise you: The people who did this will be hunted down and brought to justice." The only thing he left out was : "...under the next president!"


Of course the answers won't matter, second termers don't have to look at polls or think about re-election, or the truth or war dead.
Wow, you really can be Michael Moore-ish! ;-)

No-name
25-01-05, 20:16
I definitely don't want to debate the Civil War.

I showed my fren' from alabama- (a die hard re-enactor with the stars and bars on his bumper), the transcripts of speeches delegates sent from one Southern state to the legislatures of other states- giving the reasons for seceeding, and the overwhelming reason given was the protection of slavery from the intervention of outsiders.

It was the North that wanted the war to be "about Union"-- how many poor urban Northerners, especially new immigrants like the Irish, wanted to compete with freed slaves? Sign up boys and put yourself out of work.

I've never defended my pal Bill. Clinton lied about Monica. He's a baaaaad man. Hilary should slap him, again and again with something heavy. Presidents shouldn't lie. They shouldn't use the powers of office to get laid, or cover it up. They shouldn't make their staff look stupid by standing around in support of you when you lie.

You also shouldn't get countries involved in wars without good reasons. You shouldn't "walk down that path of nation building- we get into big trouble" as candidate W said.

got to go...
More to follow

Censport
25-01-05, 20:45
Hilary should slap him, again and again with something heavy.
Have you been to jibjab.com? You'll see Hillary slappin' Bill around! Oh, that's some funny stuff....

No-name
25-01-05, 22:30
Have you been to jibjab.com? You'll see Hillary slappin' Bill around! Oh, that's some funny stuff....

I showed it to my class before the district IT guys blocked it...(but we can get around this..)

Hey, I was going to mention that being compared to Michael Moore isn't bad, he's rather good at what he does, but I have to tell my students to distinguish between showmanship and truth- like Rush, he is an entertainer first.

Bush did kill the Hubble telescope.

I don't think the DNC listens to ELF. NOW maybe. Rainbow Coalition, methanol people, Sierra Club-- pretty much the entire fringe left gets some kinda say...that's what happens when you have no leadership- whthout a head, the DNC is often guided by its other end.

Censport
25-01-05, 22:41
I had no idea the Hubble was dead. When did that happen?

No-name
25-01-05, 23:05
Nasa got word yesterday that the Whitehouse had trimmed all funding for the hubble from the budget on Friday.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/hubble_reaction_050121.html
Astronomers
Surprised by White House Plan to Scuttle Hubble
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 21 January 2005
03:36 pm ET

Censport
25-01-05, 23:30
Well I didn't see that one coming. Must have something to do with this (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050121-114916-6519r.htm).

No-name
25-01-05, 23:36
Good article.

Cuts cuts cuts, and yet the monster still grows. I've got my cardboard sign made and my offramp picked out already.

No-name
01-02-05, 21:26
I checked the link from the other thread on Moore:
A former body guard of his was arrested on an illegal handgun charge- gasp!
Former employees- who were listed as producers but wanted to be paid as writers, were fired and now they don't like him. Egads!
Other people who know him don't like him, and he is linked to Ralph Nadar and Roger Ebert!
His parents made good money in union jobs, retired and got good benefits. Say it's not so!

I stopped reading after that.

On the leftist media bias:
A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.

Conducted for FAIR by the media analysis firm Media Tenor, the study shows that the big three nightly news shows rely heavily on society's most powerful groups when they report the news of the day. More than one in four sources were politicians-- George W. Bush alone made up 9 percent of all sources-- versus a mere 3 percent for all non-governmental advocacy groups, the sources most likely to present an alternative view to the government's.

Censport
01-02-05, 22:19
I stopped reading after that.
Awww! You shoulda kept reading. It only got better! ;-)


On the leftist media bias:
Hey, you make the news, you'll be the source for the news. Now, how about those journalists?

No-name
01-02-05, 22:38
I'm withdrawing my support for Michael Moore's sainthood.

I found this gif, but I don't think she makes a good avatar for me. What do you think?

Censport
01-02-05, 22:45
Errr, well, it's ah, attention-getting....












I'm sorry, what were you saying?

No-name
01-02-05, 22:47
Another PASTOR sent it to me. He said he thought of me when he saw it. (I think my belly moves like that when I run)