Here's the money shot right here: http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000469

This thread has evolved into a very fair minded and temperate discussion about the difference between conservatives and liberals. I'd rather bash republicans :Graucho

Liberals aren't anti-business, they're PRO business just like any other rational person. The difference is that they want the workers to benefit from the commerce they help make possible as well as the business owners.

A conservative will point to things such as the minimum wage law and scream that it's putting them out of business and nobody is going to have jobs and the economy will die. A liberal will point out that when everybody has a decent wage, more products overall will be purchased and the economy will prosper, which is absolutely true. A conservative will cry about lazy union thugs bankrupting them, a liberal will tell you to go read Upton Sinclair and learn what it was like when child labor and 18 hour workdays for pennies were the norm.

The thing that gets me is that a LARGE % of conservatives are themselves poor people, and soooo stupid that they're proud of themselves for aiding and abetting the very people and causes that want to grind them even further into the dirt.

The simple answer is rarely the right answer in international relations or on issues as staggeringly complex as the US economy, and conservatives are thriving by selling simple answers to simple people.

also, Oprah is NOT a liberal commentator. Neither is Sally Jesse or anyone like her. Paul Begala is a liberal commentator, Bill Press is a liberal commentator. What we need are commentators who use the same tactics as the conservatives. If someone goes off on a nationalist tirade, call him a fascist. If someone bitches about immigrants, ask him how the hell his ancestors got here. Call a spade a spade and quit letting the Republicans take the cheap shots unopposed.

Hmmmm. maybe its because they subscribe to conservative/neoliberal economic views because they aspire to be business owners someday? Alternatively, many are also conservatives because they are concerned about taxes?

imho, most poor conservatives (and you can flame me for this, but I believe it's true) are conservatives for racial reasons. They don't like black people. Or jews, or hispanics, and they eventually just swallow the whole reactionary pill over time. They don't realize that the real power in the reactionary crowd doesn't give a fuck if you're black, white or lime green. If you're poor, you're going under their heel, and they're tickled pink to add ANYONE'S vote to the cause.

Anyone remember David Duke?

Maybe there's an alternative reason. Maybe they are conservative along the "theoconservative" route that JeremySF outlined earlier... This line of conservatism is based on "moralist" grounds--would this necessarily be racist?

The people have spoken when it comes to talk radio and tv news editorial shows.

The liberals have abc, nbc, cbs, hollywood, newspapers etc, but when it comes to a format where the views are debated they have a hard time.

Its easy for a oprah or streisand to do their drive by politics, but if they had to debate their views they would look like total fools.


Btw, statistics show, that people who make under 30k are mostly democrat.

Dig, you crack me up! I love it. "This thread has involved into a fair minded and temperate discussion....."

WTF.........where is all the hate.....where's the controversy....

:-)

Shit, if congress had this kind of temperance, maybe we could come to consensus and get something done.

yes they would look like total fools, as they are citizens and not politicians and they don't work in the political spectrum. Just like the average conservative hardhat would look like an idiot trying to debate James Carville.

Liberals don't have 'abc, nbc, cbs, hollywood, newspapers etc', the conservatives do. Well, maybe we have hollywood :Graucho

Theoconservatives certainly exist, but I think they're pretty much despised by anyone who isn't a theoconservative themself. Their voice is disproportionately loud as compared to their numbers because they are VERY active and very loud, and the squeaky wheel gets the greasing. They vote, they march, the mail their local representatives. You might say they do it with religious fervor.

you probably think dan rather is a republican. lol, later

G sharp, I think you're right. I was listening to commentary the other day by a notable african-american pundit on NPR--who's name (b/c of too many glasses of wine...Juan something...) escapes me--who wrote a book on religion and the african-american experience. Historically, many have pointed to Sunday morning as being the most segregated time of the week throughout America. His observation was that however ironic it is, the theo-conservatives and evagelical christians, are now among the most integrated. Sounds strange, but it's a undeniable phenonmen. Check out the 700 Club (Pat Robertson) and you'll see blacks and whites doing the PTL equally......

Dan Rather is a lunatic. What's the frequency, Rooster??

come on Dig.....Dan Rather is in your camp....an admitted, unapolegetic liberal......

maybe so, but Koppel is a Rush Limbaugh fan when anyone who can read could pick up the FAIR report and see that he lies very single show and fears live debate with anyone who has opposing viewpoints.

the networks have bent over backwards to treat every administration press release as if it were the word of god. They are owned by conservatives and even in pieces where it's impossible NOT to mock the conservative position they bend over backwards to present it as if the position actually had merit. They will ALWAYS present both sides of an issue. They NEVER talk about the underhanded way Bush got the presidency in the first place and how well those who abetted the crime have been rewarded. They don't mention Bush's absolute lack of qualifications for the White House or talk about his drugged out past. Conservatives get away with rampant hypocrisy every single day. Family values talk from Newt Gingrich should be laughed off the air, but he sits there sober-faced talking about the sanctity of marriage and the big three networks just nod their heads in agreement.

Have you watched the Fox network lately? Do you know who Rupert Murdoch is (without googling him)?

the liberal bias in media is a fabricated concept from conservative pundits. the 'litigation explosion' by evil trial lawyers is a concept fabricated by insurance companies and propagated by their congressional mouthpieces. You've been propagandized very thoroughly and very effectively.

"The idea that the mainstream media have a "liberal bias" has long been conventional wisdom. At various times, public figures from Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich have all taken refuge in the claim that the "liberal" media were out to get them. A legion of conservative talk show hosts, pundits and media-watch groups pound away at the idea that the media exhibit an inherently "liberal" tilt. But the assertion is based on remarkably little evidence and is repeatedly made in the face of contradictory facts.

In particular, the conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Researchers and analysts have discovered persuasive evidence against the latter claim. Content analyses of the news media have, at a minimum, shown the absence of any such systematic liberal/left tilt; some studies have found a remarkably predictable press usually reflecting the narrow range of views of those in positions of power, as well as a spectrum of expert opinion that tilts toward the right.

But even some progressives have been willing to cede to conservatives the first point: that journalists' views are to the left of the public. Professionals in general, they observe, often have "liberal" leanings on social issues and there is no reason to expect journalists to be any different. However, they have also argued convincingly that the norms of "objective journalism" and the powerful corporate interests which own and sponsor the news media ensure that news content never strays too far, for too long, from protecting the status quo. You don't understand the corporate ideology of General Motors by studying the personal beliefs of the assembly-line workers, the argument goes. Ideological orientation is introduced and enforced by those high in the organizational hierarchy who have the power to hire and fire, to reward and punish. Working journalists, despite their sometimes high visibility, usually do not call the shots in the nation's media corporations. (The documentary "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom" provides vivid illustrations of this situation.) Consequently, the private views of individual journalists often matter little."


Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim

Koppel is a fan of everyone....He's said he's a fan of Howard Stern, Imus, even Donahue.....he's one voice in the media that IMHO truly tries to be objective. I watch Nightline religiously and I'd say he's pretty even-handed.

As far as asking me who Rupert Murdoch is, give me a break....

gee...who is he??

Do you know he's not an American? He's an Aussie. And, yes, I'd readily admit he seems to be a conservative (or at least he's trying to fill a voide for ratings) and that Fox is *the* conservative network........

As far as your contention that the networks have "bent over backwards to treat every administration press release as if it were the word of god.", I wouldn't completely disagree, but that goes for liberal administrations as well. However, if you watch 60 Minutes I'd say it's pretty liberal. Bernie Goldberg, who worked at CBS, for years as an insider has documented the liberal bias at the networks.

Yes, they are pro-biz.....but bottom line is they seek ratings....they're not owned by a bunch of conservatives....most of the network owners are centrist, if not left-leaning (save for Murdoch), but at the end of the day they are pragmatists looking for ratings. If bashing Bush isn't going to get ratings they're not going to make it a focal point of their programming. But, if it turns out Dubya has been bangin' Condie Rice, I guarantee they'll unleash the.......................

and what's *the* liberal network?

everything else!

but, don't mistake me as saying they don't sometimes appease the status quo for ratings...in times of heightened patriotism they do...................for ratings...................but the rest of the time, they're pretty damn liberal.




but damn it....stop responding....I need to go to bed :-(

You are buying into the right wing propaganda. There is an obivous right wing media bias in the U.S., take a look around.

A few days ago on GFY someone tried to say that the newspapers in the U.S. are liberal. A poll from before the 2000 election was posted and papers in the U.S. endorsed Bush 2:1 with publishers saying they were going to vote for Bush 3:1 over Gore.

The myth of the liberal media is just a lie made up by right wingers to try to push the media even further to the right.

'everything else' is a pat answer, but I think we both know that isn't true. there IS no 'liberal network', and if there were there would be huge outrage from every corner of the conservative kingdom.

ok now I'll stop replying ;) just LET ME HAVE THE LAST WORD!!! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Think for yourself =Liberal
Be told what to think = Conservative

Exactly the reason governments that attempt to control and manipulate its own people always go after the liberals. They are more intelligent, tend to think outside the norm and thus represent the greatest threat to government control. There's a reason the former USSR jailed poets, the Nazis went after liberals, and Nixon kept a file on John Lennon.

Hmm...speculation? because most social research seems to counter this assertion.

Also, regarding the "simple minded nature" of conservatism, one of the icons of the Republican Party said it best "Pardon me for being lengthy, but I had no time to be brief. Four score and seven years ago....." None other than Abraham Lincoln. The point being that well thought out logical concepts can be expressed briefly. Thoughts put together with insufficient time and reflection tend to be wordy and complex.

This hypothesis is put to test time and time again in science, economics, religion and social theory. Albert Einstein once said while developing the theory of relativitiy that once he could explain it simply, he would know that he had demonstrated his theorem. Looking at Einsteins writings leading up to the publication of his therom, one senses a complex and multilayered argument. By the time he published his theory of relativity, it was stated so plainly that any famer could understand it (The train whistle). This was also true with Newton's theory of gravity.

The point, if it sound like common sense, it probably was a complex concept at one time. It has, however, evolved into commonly accepted theory. Concepts like free trade and low taxes seem simple, but their underlying economic arguments took a century of contorted research to demonstrate their benefits. Many people take these concepts for granted now, thus, their simplistic sounding nature.

Finally, as someone pointed out, conservatives are not nearly the cohesive group of people that some assume.

Social Conservatives acutually share little in common with mainstream conservatives. Actually, the libertarian, monetarist economic viewpoint of mainstream conservatives are abhored by many social conservatives. Social conservatives are actually more of a component of political coalition building than a tie in to an ideology that governs "Conservative" economic, social and foreign policy theory.

At the other end of the spectrum are Libertarians who abhor Social Conservatives and their agenda. The position of social conservatives is anathema to Libertarian ideology.

There are the Reagan Conservatives that represent some of the "poor conservatives" that someone referred to. Simply people who want to live the American Dream without government interferrence. Many of these people were once democrats. Some of these folks evolved into social conservatives, but most remain atttracted to the notion of strong defense, deregulation, and low taxes - quite a sucessful mix for Reagan.

The traditional Northeastern, intellectual wing of conservatives tend to have much in common with Libertarians, but acutally believe that government has some usefulness. These people also abhor social conservatives, view Libertarians as idealistic, and have little use for the broadening of the movement by the Reagan conservatives. This is one of the two intellectual pillars of conservatism that worships both Milton Friedman and Abraham Lincoln.

As on the left, there is an amalgam of special interests that align themselves with the group that will include them in their pluralistic coalitions (purely election, vote gaining maneuvering). On the right you have the anti-abortion activists, the immigration idiots, and the development dictators. On the left you have the eco-terrorists, the race baiting celebrities, and the behaviorial police.

All in all, to state that complex theories stated simply reflects simple mindedness is simple minded in and of itself. That does not mean that some simple sounding solutions are not pure demogougary, it sometimes is. But, simple, logical statements are sometimes the product of a period of complexity.

???? I haven't seen that study....but I have seen one study after another since the 70s that say 2/3 of the media identify themselves as "liberal".....

the right wing is more sensationalized, hence more interesting....when it comes to liberals they are the status quo!

You couldnt be more correct. Most of the liberal voices in talk radio have been suppressed and replaced by conservatives.
Clear Channel, which owns more than 7800 radio stations in the US has been very effective in removing the liberal voice. In Colorado there is not 1 liberal voice on talk radio. I cannot think of one nationally syndicated liberal host, but I can come up with quite a few conservative hosts. Seems strange when half of the country consider themselves to be liberal.

stinkyballs.....er, thunderballs.....

I'll be the first one to admit that editorial on radio is dominated by the right......

Clear Channel bought up everything.....they went from something like 6 to 2600 channels in a couple of years after deregulation.....

I support dereg., but the way they didn't wasn't the smoothest way to do it...

believe or not, I enjoy hearing EVERYONE'S opinion.

I guess you don't get NPR where you live.

Not trying to be a bitch here, but I'd be interested in reading the studies you're referring to. :)

Quit smelling my balls dammit!

I'm sorry your memory is sooooo bad....

fine! i'm done!!!!

:-)

this was from a cnn exit poll from the last election

Under $15,000 57 % gore 37 % bush
$15-30,000 54 % gore 41 % bush

Not suppressed. The bottom line is money. They support what makes money.

Try this one link for an indicator

http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/...s/US/P000.html

Hmmmm.... 63% of people who attend church more than once a week voted for Bush. Holy Shit! Do people really go to church more than once a week? Scary.

Bible Thumpers love thier Bush! He's Jesus approved! :thumbsup

Hmmm... and of those who think that Bush's drunken driving arrest was significant.... 77% for Gore...

Teatotalers for Gore....Seems to counterbalance the frequent church visitors.

"Think for yourself =Liberal
Be told what to think = Conservative "


Is part of that thinking manipulating and keeping down the black man. Using scare tactics on seniors. Buying off the lower class' votes with handouts. Appealing to ideological college kids who have never made more than eight bucks an hour yet feel like they know everything. etc

Agree Rooster...

Is it not Liberals who want to tell me...

Whether I should smoke
How fast to drive
What to drink
What to eat
What to do with my property...

Bottom line, both groups want to dictate my behavior, they just have different behaviors they wish to control.

You got it backwards son. Its republicans and their 'moral bible' that attempt to dictate everyone elses personal behaviors.

liberals could care less what you eat, but they make sure that the meat packers follow basic rules for handling meat. Republicans would just as soon let them poison you to 'stay off the back of business'.

they could also give a shit if you want to kill yourself doing 120 mph in your car, but they won't let you do it on the highway so you can endanger everyone else.

they don't particularly care if you smoke, but don't like the hypocrisy of allowing some drugs and not others that are less harmful but more demonized.

you just want the freedom to be a cancer on society, and we don't want to give it to you.

Conservatives want to tell you what you can read and say and think, who you can fuck and where you can fuck them.

Scare tactics on seniors? If you consider telling them the truth scary, yes... keeping down the black man? that's a fucking joke. DAVID DUKE - TRENT LOTT - conservatives are racist to the core.

Teetotalers aren't for Gore, but YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED to parade your moral superiority in front of everyone when you're a fucking drunk and a cocaine sniffing party hound yourself, even when your daddy was the President. That's called hypocrisy, and it's the ugliest thing about the Republicans right now.

:thumbsup Very well said

First off, I am neither conservative nor liberal. I would actually be impossible for me to define my politics simply.

I do, however, always react to derision from both sides of the spectrum, so I will reply

In 1994 Clinton proposed legislation that would place a tax on foods considered "unhealthy", much like a sin tax on alcohol and tobacco. The proposal was such widely derided, it was quickly withdrawn.

We currently are witnessing a suit, financially supported by a number of organizations typically associated as "liberal", regarding the financial culpability of restaurants for offering foods with a high fat content.

I would say this is a trite more than regulation of the meat packing industry.

Sorry, I lived in Ny state during Coumo's regime there and actually challenged the maintenance of the 55 mph speed limit there when the rest of the country was at 65 mph. Having received three tickets in three weeks for the tremendous crime of going 62, 59 and 65 in a 55, I challenged the legitimacy of the law (hell, I was going to lose my license which was critical at the time). Suffice it to say that discovery revealed one of the primary motivations for retaining the 55 mph speed limit was fee generation (ergo, taxation). I furtermore don't think that doing a 60 in a 55 rates as a major social transgression on my part.

Then please explain the concept of sin taxes. There are quite a few activities that are actually more dangerous to your health than smoking but are not taxed at the same level - or at all. Why? I think it is because smoking is unfashionable right now while some other activities are not.

All I am saying is that both groups wish to regulate your behavior, they just have different priorties. Whether you agree with one set of priorities or not, is not the issue. To deny, however, that one of the groups does not attempt to legislate their values using hysterical examples is naive.

By the way, my comment about teatotalers was a metaphor to point out the irony of using urelated statistical data to reach a conclusion...it wasn't really a serious comment. Maybe the rediculous nature of the comment did not touch your humour nerve.

As far as the generalization that conservatives want to tell you what to read and think, etc. Yeah, social conservatives do, but most conservatives are not social conservatives, just as all liberals are not eco-terrorists or socialists.

let's take this down to a more simple level




people on far left = fucked up

people on far right = fucked up



people in the middle where most of the truth is = :thumbsup

Thanks Jimmy...simple way to say it.

lol