Fox News lobbying arm for right wing....

[NeXus]

I read this article in the Washington Post and it showed some statistics of major mis-conceptions about major news events, like Iraqi war, and where they get their news from.

-Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

-22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts."

What the hell is that? What dumb-ass thinks that we found WMD or that Osama Bin Laden and Sadaam were allies?

Well apparantley 85% of the dumb-assess get their "Fair and Balanced" news coverage from Fox News. Who are they kidding when they say "We Report, You Decide" and "No Spin Zone". Oh yeah, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are filled with so much right-wing reteric bullsh*t that it makes me want to smash my TV.

Isnt it ironic that the one media that claims that every other news source is liberal and biased is the one media who has to constantley brainwash their viewers with stupid slogans?

Heres the arcticle:http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A27061-2003Oct14&notFound=true

[mylittlefriend]

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

[bigbutnottoo]

Actually, Oreilly is not conservative on a lot of issues. I know he cant stand John Ashcroft and his opinion of BushII is fairly low. For one thing he cant stand secretive elitist types.

However, I believe anyone painting this as left vs. right ( or life for that matter) is missing the boat on a lot of things.

For one thing, modern Republicans go completely against what Republicans are suppposed to stand for. And I dont think Democrats for supposed to be Socialists either.

For example, I am a Classical Liberal. Which today is probably considered Right Wing. Give me a break.

[Godsize]

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/officialindex.htm

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
Well apparantley 85% of the dumb-assess get their "Fair and Balanced" news coverage from Fox News.
The study did not account for self-selection bias, so it is worthless for drawing cause/effect conclusions.

If you want to prove that Fox News reported a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, or any other allegation, you'd have to produce the Fox News documents.

[NeXus]

Below is a transcript from the show Hannity and Colmes, which some of you may know Sean Hannity is the right-wing protege' of Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich (R).

I picked the first transcript I found and read it over. Now this isnt a clear lie but the point is that Fox goes out of there way to defend the Republicans even when they know they are wrong. They are relentless with their accusations and then when caught in a corner their only defense is change the subject or some other bullshit. If you want accurate, cited, and researched facts about the lies of Fox or any other right wing character, then read Al Franken's Book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look At The Right. He gives specific examples cited and everything.


MACARTHUR: Clearly, if the president of the United States has lied on a grand scale to Congress...

HANNITY: Name me one lie. Name me one lie.

MACARTHUR: Let me finish.

HANNITY: If you're going to call him a liar, back it up.

MACARTHUR: I will, yes. I'll talk about what he said to Bush…Blair at the press conference on September 7 at Camp David. He said…he cited a non-existent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (search), saying that Saddam was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon and infamously said, "What more evidence do we need?" And from there...

HANNITY: We don't have time for a speech.

No time for a speech, eh? Sound to me like Sean Hannity has no time for the truth. Notice how he dosent even listen or answer what MacArthur has to say and just blows his answer off.

Now you might say that this isnt a lie, and its not. But I dont have time to look through a bunch of transcripts. Point is they always defend the Republican and constantly spin their stories and cover stories that fit the political interest of the infamous right-wing billionaire, Rupert Murdoch.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
Below is a transcript from the show Hannity and Colmes...
Umm, you quoted conservative Hannity, who is balanced on the show by the liberal Colmes.

CNN has their own version of that, Crossfire, or some name like that. Wildly extreme conservative and liberal positions are advocated there as well.

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by NeXus
Fox goes out of there way to defend the Republicans even when they know they are wrong.

Hannity does. that doesnt mean Fox does. And Hannity is not really part of the News part of FoxNews. News would be Brit Hume. Hannity, OReilly, Greta,etc are Opinion&Commentary programs. Is Larry King the newsman for CNN? I agree, a lot of people give the administration a pass. Same thing happened for Clinton. Same thing will happen now but with different people. Double standards across the board. Both parties support the Constitution and the spirit of America on a selective arbitrary basis.

[goodbutnotgreat]

current conservative thought appeals to people who worry about themselves and those close to them; current liberal thinking is concerned with the wellfare of the country and people in general.

i see conservative politics in their current form as being based on fear, self-interest, and control. the landscapes created by conservatives for the last two and a half decades has been this: bigger government, bear market, recession, ineffective foreign policy, environmental abuse (not so much bush sr. i admit), industrial and corporate glad-handing.

and fox is conservative, so is the washington times, i don't see why this is even worth arguing. nobody denies the new york times are more liberal . . . i don't see why conservative media is so blatant about it's views and always tried to dodge the label it creates for itself. ask your average card carrying hannity and colmes fan on the street what he thinks about liberals, he'll say they hate america. read a book by ann coulter, it's terrifying.

hannity is a moron, he repeates the same couple of opinions on the same few topics over and over and over again, and guess what? he always agrees with whatever conservative power is doing at the moment, without fail. gee, that makes for such an interesting show. bill o'reilly, hannity, ann coulter, rush limbaugh, joe scarborough (he's a little more interesting than the others i would say, he at least knows how to speak with other human beings in logical manner), all these conservative hacks are just well-paid mouthpieces. their audience are not fans of politics or political debate, they're just hard-lining conservatives who like to hear their opinions reenforced over and over again.

o'reilly and hannity tell their guests to shut-up as often as a couple of arguing third graders might do to each other, and thats because they know their audience doesn't want to hear the issues discussed, they just want to see liberals get slammed by a hardcore conservative figure. they seem to have discovered a successful format so more power to 'em i guess. i tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume nobody is dumb enough to buy into that kind of bullshit . . .

pick up al frankens new book, even if you hate al franken. he has numerous examples where he catches all of the above media figures blatantly lying, proving it with transcripts, recordings, ect. when confronted they all act like children, some threatening violence, some denying it is their voice, or even better that they ever made a comment that is officially transcribed from their TV show, by their own network.

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
current conservative thought appeals to people who worry about themselves and those close to them; current liberal thinking is concerned with the wellfare of the country and people in general.



I am not a conservative, I am libertarian. If the above were actually true, I would be more likely conservative. however, modern conservatives are a lot more far reaching than that. They totally disregard the 10th Ammendment for one."Worrying about yourself "(though I wouldnt say "worry", more "self-interest") would be a good thing. That would more describe libertarian thought. Frankly Republicans support policies that reach into private areas that are no one's business and unconstitutional ( such as sex and drug laws). The labels are archaic. As I said, libertarian=Classical Liberal= considered "right-wing"

Your statement also sums up what is wrong with almost all political movements or conventions. They appeal to "emotion" and not "reason." There is such a thing in life as standing for and doing what's right, and not just what feels good or receives emotional support. That (thinking rationally, not emotionally) would cure a lot of the world's problems, including most mental illness.

[NeXus]

Well put goodbutnotgreat, spoken like a person who can actually form their own opinion. We need more people who can see through their bullshit like you.

I heard that Al Franken might be running for a seat at the Senate. I know the world would be a better place if more people thought him. He's got my vote.

In response to the other two knuckleheads.
If you watch Hannity and Colmes regularly you would know that:

1) Alan Colmes never calls Sean Hannity on any of the bullshit he spits out. He lets him run his mouth even when he knows hes wrong.

2)Hannity gets considerably more time to talk.
In Franken's book he does a chapter on them and picks the show after the State of the Union address and counts how many words the two of them say.
Alan Colmes: 1261 words
Sean Hannity: 2086 words
Sean talks almost twice as much as Alan.
There's a reason why its not Colmes and Hannity.

Of course Sean isnt the whole FoxNews team but hes the second biggest commentator in the network. First being Bill O'Lielly. But the point is that they are all right-wing accept Greta Van Susteran, who's never said anything I can remember to be biased, and Alan Colmes, who I believe, is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

We need a liberal news channel. They can bring on Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Al Franken, Tim Robbins, DL Hughley, Charles Barkley, Michael Moore, and Jon Stewart to commentate on the vast right-wing agenda. All of them are left-wing or liberal or whatever. All of them are rich but the stick up for the little, middle class average joe who are getting screwed by the billionaires who run this so-called democracy.

Boycott Fox!

[goodbutnotgreat]

yeah really, fuck fox. i try to turn a blind eye to things like fox news but they're just so scheisty and coniving, gotta blow the steam off i guess. taking all your news from cable broadcast is a bad idea anyways. if somebody told me they were informed about the world because they watched fox news everyday i wouldn't even bother with them.

bigbutnottoobig - i wasn't referring to you dude, i don't think anyways. you made a good distinction though, about self-interest. of course we're all self-interested. i just think the neo-conservative shitheads are specifically interested in themselves and could give a shit about actually improving the country in all aspects, it's a warped philosophy all the way around.

i don't really agree with libertarian ideals all the way around either, although i do understand the appeal. i always have the intuition that if we were all libertarians that anarchy would prevail. if everybody was smart, considerate, and moral we wouldn't need all the regulation, but, you know, it's not like that. i don't see libertarians as being conservative in anyway though, it's has it's own pedigree as far as i'm concerned.

james madison intended for our government to thrive with a two party system presenting opposing positions fairly close to the middle of popular consensus. he wanted the parties to rotate in power and balance one another, as well as face contest from numerous smaller factions. one thing that really pisses me off about the GOP crowd is their attempt at total domination of governmental politics. it's undermining and short sighted. they also try to integrate the christian right's agenda into national legislation all the time but that's a whole other can of worms. these people rely on fear and anger to push their politics. they dress it up as patriotism, but these same "patriots" attack anybody that criticizes the country, which is one of the fundamental and most important rights given to us by the founders, in all their flawed glory.

i'll say this much, i read a lot of books about politics (and not just liberal perspectives, i read everything i can), and you don't find too many reputable scholars and PhD's who are into this conservative shit. most of the conservative leadership comes from A) industry and old money and B)the religious right - sometimes the military although i think the armed forces leadership is quite a bit more moderate than the current popular flavor of republican madness. conservatives want to maintain the status quo in the face of a dire need for change in order to protect what they feel is the environment most condusive to supporting their lifestyle. they trick a lot of working class americans into thinking they're on their side by demonizing liberals as upper-class dandies who hate america and want to turn the government into a massive public works project at the expense of hard working people. conservatives sling media venom left and right, promote censorship ("the reagans," off the air of course, jesus fucking christ), and rely in disinformation to keep their agendas popular.

i think there's some backlash coming though, slowly but surely. most voters kind of have their eyes half-closed but when the evening news comes on, no matter how dressed up, and shows them the results of electing (sort of electing) a hardcore right-wing administration that has their party's agenda in mind before the welfare of the united states, then at least enough people are going to get the point - get those people the fuck out of the whitehouse because four more years could be the kind of disaster that you never come all the way back from.

[stillwantmore]

I consider myself in the middle usually...not extreme conservative or liberal. BUT, the Washington Post is a VERY liberal/left slanted paper. Why would you expect an unbiased non-liberal ....non pessimistic feeback on a more conservative news channel such as Fox News, from the Post??

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
you don't find too many reputable scholars and PhD's who are into this conservative shit. Most of the Nobel Prizes in economics have gone to free-market capitalist advocates in the last three decades.

[goodbutnotgreat]

it's a common misconception that liberalism equals socialism . . . not so in todays climate, thats more of a prewar ideal when the left actually had some kind of unified power base.

i was also referring to political writers, i would never attempt to say all accomplished academics are liberal, that is ridiculous. i simply meant that most analysts and scholars are highly critical of the neoconservative movement, even thsoe who have right-leaning views themselves.

also, the current conservative atmosphere isn't the capitalist stronghold they associate themselves with. they're more or less just pro-deregulation, which is not a direct reflection of actual market freedom, although superficially it seems so. clinton was the biggest free trade advocate around. our country never has and never will be a totally free market anyways . . . that would be disasterous.just like we're not 100% democratic we're not 100% capitalist either, we just idealize the core principles.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
i simply meant that most analysts and scholars are highly critical of the neoconservative movement
Academic institutions, especially the political ones, are notoriously liberal, so it is little wonder they bash conservatives.

However, even here we find self-interest at work. Academic salaries are usually paid by big government. So it is in the interest of academics to promote big government -- it helps guarantee their paycheck.

[goodbutnotgreat]

again, would say that is just an assumption. many colleges, such as harvard, berkely, yale, and other high profile places have a liberal rep. but there are many schools, georgetwon, holy cross, UVA, that have an equally conservative reputation. and less than a quarter, i believe, of all universites are publicly funded, the rest are private institutions.

i would suggest that high scholars would not adopt a political viewpoint out of mere interest in perpetutatiing abstract job security . . . not to say that none might, but wouldn't you agree it's a bit of a leap to suggest academics paid by the government slant their views as such?

there are plenty of distinguished conservative theorists as well, just not as many prominent or noted. as far as conservative and liberal attitdues go, their are drastic differences in many from one area to another, and often the academic terms are not closely linked to what you and i immediately associate with 'liberal' and 'conservative.'

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
pick up al frankens new book
Pick up Bernard Goldberg's book, "Biased." He worked for CBS for years, won an Emmy Award for broadcast journalism. In his recent book, he exposes the left wing bias of the "mainstream media". He was there, right in the belly of the beast.

[goodbutnotgreat]

it would make a fine companion piece as franken discusses the goldberg book and claims of a left-wing media bias at length, in his book. one chapter contains a good deal of statistical evidence from non-partisan sources that i at least found insightful.

personally, i would say broadcast news is fairly centrist, it might swing depending on who is in charge from one year to the next, but i think it stays close to the paint. it's really biased towards sensationalism and popular momentum, rather than the mroe preferable choice of actual realavence (sic? i need to go back to grammar school i swear).

keep in mind, this conservative/liberal business is all subjective anyways. if you're all the way to the right, like extremely way way right, a moderate right winger is going to seem too liberal for you. likewise for the others. green party folk don't think much of the john kerrys of the world as they see them as being hardly different from their GOP counterparts, from their angle.

[NeXus]

Bernie Goldberg is a dousche-bag.

I saw him on Tim Russert and Tim frickin grilled him with questions about the inconsistancies of his book and his left-wing conspiracy theory. I hate Bernie because he's just trying to catch the same train that the left is on by creating this false myth of a liberal bias.

He goes on to say that all major college professors are left-wing. Maybe so, but thats only because these professors are some of the smartest people who have MBA's, PhD's and Masters Degrees and they know the truth about the Right.

They know the Republicans run this country and they hate it because Republicans are trying to expand the gap between rich and poor. But their slogan is you can be a fat cat too, but reality is that we cant. Fact is they control the White House, the Senate, House of Reps and Congress.

Did you know that 95% of Nascar fans vote Republican?
My theory is that people who vote Republican are not as smart as your typical NYC left-wing liberal. Think about it, why else would these Republicans be entertained be a bunch of cars going in a circle 500 times in a row? Its like the little kid who turns the Jack in the Box and is so entertained every time the Jack comes up even though he's seen it a hundred times before.

[Godsize]

Why would anyone with half a brain put any stock into what any of those "talking heads" on Fox News Channel have to say?

The only reason why I wish I knew more about politics is so I could bash it more effectively.

One time I heard a female talking head slip once while introducing the next segment on Fox News Channel...

She said, and this is no bullshit either, I heard it with my own ears... I wish I had taped it. She said, "Fox News Lies, uh, Live."

I almost shit my pants from laughing.

[bigbutnottoo]

The best TV slipup of all time was on Foxnews by main anchor Shepard Smith.

On a mini-story about Jennifer Lopez and what her neighbors thought about her, he said " These people would rather give J.Lo. a blow-job, I mean, a curb-job." then he said "I dont know how that hapened. it wont happen again."

[Godsize]

Oh yeah, that was great. I remember that one. Doesn't that dude look like an android?

And it's off-topic, but Burt Renolds looks fuckin' Asian these days. I've seen him in a Maaco commercial recently. Looks like an Eskimo. I guess it's from all that bad plastic surgery.

[bigbutnottoo]

1. Someone mentioned "Neo-conservatives" IMO, they are the most dangerous of all political stripes. Even principled Republicans recognize that. Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas gave a great speech/article called "Neo-conservatives."

2. Bernie Goldberg- I havent read his books. He has a new one out btw. But i do imagine what he has to say is truthful. Not familiar with his politics, but I like him on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.

As far as political books, my favorites are probably by Larry Elder, Ten Things you Cant Say in America" particularly. From the mention of Larry, I could naturally follow into what I believe is one of the worst aspects of modern "liberalism" and that is the creation of false racism as a cottage industry for Democrats; and that could naturally expose why I believe democrats intentionally sabotage the educational system. But that is such a different topic.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
My theory is that people who vote Republican are not as smart as your typical NYC left-wing liberal.
Actually, in a survey conducted by Berkeley of highest education obtained:

7.3% of"strong" Republicans have a graduate degree versus 5.6% of "strong" Democrats.
19.1% of Repubs have a Bachelor degree versus 8.9% of Demos.
5.2% of Repubs have Jr College versus 3.6% for Demos.
48.5% of Repubs have High School versus 44.4% for Demos.
20% of Repubs have dropped out of HS versus 37.4% of Demos.

Republicans are more educated at all levels than are Democrats.

[Godsize]

Especially in the field of Satanism.

[NeXus]

bobbdobbs
Who know how that study was conducted or anything so I dont really buy your statistics, who knows where you got it.

I saw Bernie Goldberg,whos a typical right-winger, was on The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart and Bernie and Jon both agreed that there was one conservative cable news channel, of course FoxNews. I swear to God, watch November 18th show, which was Tuesday. I saw the re-run on Wed.
It was a good show. Jon was kinda makin fun of that fact Bernie thinks theres a liberal media by using some stupid bubble analogy. I think Bill Mahar and Jon Stewart should get their own commentary show together like Bill O'Reilly's show.

bigbutnottoo,
Your making some bold statements about Dems sabotaging the educational systems. You gotta say something to back it up. Maybe you have haven't heard of something called No Child Left Behind? What an ironic name for something that actually leaves many children behind, by giving federal funding to schools that lower their dropout rate by putting failing students into some lame-ass categories like "transferred" or "enrolled in GED". And with the whole $87 billion and the tax-breaks to everyone, Bush is running short of money for schools. So dont tell me Democrats are to be blamed for schools.

Oh yeah and what does "creation of false racism as a cottage industry for Democrats" supposed to mean?

[goodbutnotgreat]

claims of intelligence and conspiracy aside . . .

it may be useful to remind that the left has no real structured power base like the right does. the right wing has a unified front of industry, the religious right, and yes some big media ownership.

there are left leaning publications, organizations, ect. but a simple look at the organizational structure will reveal that the base of leftist politics is disjointed at best. conservatives have excelled at organizing and enforcing their agendas. i will also say that the more empirical studies i read, the more i think conservative economics and social agendas (basically one in the same) is perhaps well-intentioned on some level, but in the end wholly ineffective. i try to not judge conservatives, and i know many, but after a certain point i identify hard-lining conservatives as people that have bought into some serious disinformation.

this stuff about smarter or dumber . . . who cares really.

i still equate it to the fact that i feel conservative thought lines tend to stem from self-interest, and a desire to enforce certain conservative principles.

liberals subscribe to a more idealistic philosophy, encouraging globalization, change and class equality. none of us have a doctorate, that i know of anyway, so sighting various stats and such are really only tit-for-tat fodder. your political identity is related to your basic belief about what the correct role of government is and how it should be exercised.

i really hate party politics, i think the current climate is as stagnant as it's ever been. i'm not terribly impressed with any of the demo candidates, but i see several of them as being a preferable option to bush's policies. i don't think bush has really been a terrible president even though i don't agree with what he stands for, but the room for improvement is substantial at this point.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
I dont really buy your statistics Feel free to post your own in support of your "theory."

[goodbutnotgreat]

hi bobbdobbs, would you mind linking that survey you posted? i want to bookmark it, could be a useful citation for a stats reserach paper i have to write in the near future. thanks, i appreciate it.

[NeXus]

Dont worry the study probably dosent exist, or taken out of context, or conducted with a bias or whatever.

"conservatives have excelled at organizing and enforcing their agendas"-goodbutnotgreat

Gee, you know who was also great at organizing, and forcing their agendas upon people through patriotism and endless campaigning and propaganda??

The Nazi's! Yes you all remember the Third Reich and Hitler, who got everyone to to blame Jews and band together in a masterplan that ended up with Hitler trying to take over the world. Remember things usually are done for power and money. You guys need to be more skeptical and cynical.

But your right, the Left needs to be more mainstream and organize better. I agree 100%. They could also use a multi-billionaire owner who will give them their own world-wide magazines, commentators, talk radio shows, and of course, their own news channel. Someone like Rupert Murdoch who actually does this for the Right. Then maybe the Left can compete.

Think about, there is literally liquid gold over in the Middle East and September 11 was the best thing that has happened to Bush politically. It him gave a blank check for an endless War on Terrorism. Well guess who gets the multi-billion dollar construction job in Iraq. Of course its Haliburton. And guess who is former CEO top shareholder of Haliburton. Of course Vice Pres Dick Cheney. Rich, white men run this country that is based on a democracy fo the people.

bigbutnottoo,
you still gotta back up what you said. Im waiting for some evidence.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
hi bobbdobbs, would you mind linking that survey you posted? i want to bookmark it, could be a useful citation for a stats reserach paper i have to write in the near future. thanks, i appreciate it.

http://transformer.cs.caltech.edu/archives/000029.html

I ran the numbers into a spread sheet to get the relative percentage of affiliates in each education level -- since the table didn't itself total up to 100% in each row.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
Dont worry the study probably dosent exist
I do believe you just called me a liar. Cool off, bud. Wipe the spittle from your lips and count to ten. Think peaceful thoughts. Happy thoughts. The rage will pass.

[Spektrum]

Originally posted by bobbdobbs
Actually, in a survey conducted by Berkeley of highest education obtained:

7.3% of"strong" Republicans have a graduate degree versus 5.6% of "strong" Democrats.
19.1% of Repubs have a Bachelor degree versus 8.9% of Demos.
5.2% of Repubs have Jr College versus 3.6% for Demos.
48.5% of Repubs have High School versus 44.4% for Demos.
20% of Repubs have dropped out of HS versus 37.4% of Demos.

Republicans are more educated at all levels than are Democrats.

Anyone who has taken a statistics class can see through this. When you mix in the uneducated, poor(who are predominately democrats), it is going to bring down the statistics across the board for the democrats. If you did not mix them in, you will see that more democrats are 'more educated on all levels'(to correct your incorrect english)' than republicans.

This coming from an independent. I personally hate our government.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by Spektrum
If you did not mix them in, you will see that more democrats are 'more educated on all levels ... than republicans. It will be interesting to see how you weight your data. But have at it. You've stated your conclusion. Now produce the numbers.

In the samples, there were 1.7 times more "strong democrats" than "strong republicans." But there were less than 1.7 times more graduate degree holding democrats.

I don't know what statistical handwaving you intend, but in the rest of the world, that means that if you pick an individual republican, his chances of having a graduate degree are higher than if you pick an individual democrat.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by Spektrum
If you did not mix them in, you will see that more democrats are 'more educated on all levels... than republicans.
Just to be sporting, I removed, below, all the highschool dropouts from both the strong repubs and strong dems. Here are the new figures:

9.1% repubs versus 8.9% dems have graduate degrees.
23.9% repubs versus 14.3% dems have bachelor degrees.
6.5% repubs versus 5.8% dems have jr college degrees.
60.6% repubs versus 71.0% dems have high school diplomas.

Doesn't seem to help your case. Looks like republicans remain more highly educated than democrats.

Although I don't see the logic in throwing out less educated groups in order to bring up the education average -- seems kinda cheaty.

[Spektrum]

It just seems odd to me... I mean, how do they collect this data?

Just wanted to add in... to quote the moron himself, "fuzzy math".

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by NeXus
bobbdobbs
bigbutnottoo,
Your making some bold statements about Dems sabotaging the educational systems. You gotta say something to back it up. Maybe you have haven't heard of something called No Child Left Behind? What an ironic name for something that actually leaves many children behind, by giving federal funding to schools that lower their dropout rate by putting failing students into some lame-ass categories like "transferred" or "enrolled in GED". And with the whole $87 billion and the tax-breaks to everyone, Bush is running short of money for schools. So dont tell me Democrats are to be blamed for schools.

Oh yeah and what does "creation of false racism as a cottage industry for Democrats" supposed to mean?

As I said, I'm not a Republican, but then again neither is Bush. Republicans are supossed to end the Department of Education, not increase the funding higher than Clinton levels.
Ifyou even think education has anything to do with the president, please go back and read the Constitution.

Yes, when it comes to politics, you do favors for the people who get you elected. For Democrats, one main supporter is teacher unions. Another is self-appointed "black leaders." If education improves in any way, Democrats stand to lose. If public schools somehow improved, Democrats would no longer be able to whine about needing more money to improve education. If parents were allowed to send their children to better schools, it might put teachers out of jobs and/or lower union pay (since private school teachers who are much better get paid less,among other things). Thats why democrats oppose vouchers, even though most black parents support them. Just like if the general lives of black people improve, they are less likely to support democrats. So it is in the interest of democrats to keep black people poor and angry and poor people poor. That is how they buy their votes by promising to help certain groups out, playing class warfare and the racecard. Dems create an industry out of racism and victimhood, instead of showing the people they profess to help the real way to wealth and happiness, which is of course: rational self-interest.

So, yes racism and poverty are industries for democrats. You could argue that oil or whatever is an industry for Republicans. But overall Republicans believe that adults are rational beings that are best left to make their own decisions and parents should make decisions for their children, not political unions with levelsof beauracracy.Democrats philosophically believe that people are helpless pitiful little creatures that need the government to run their lives. And yes, modern day Democrats are the modern day Slave Masters.

[bigbutnottoo]

Since we had to get on the whole racial political thing:

Did you also know that Gun Control was invented solely for the purpose of disarming blacks so they would be obedient and subserviant to those limousine liberals?And that the first federal gun law was an almost exact translated copy of Hitler's law disarming Jews?

If we really want to get into why Democrats are bad for blacks, whites, Americans, I can go on and on.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by Spektrum
how do they collect this data?
That's a legit question. You can follow the link to the database origin and find out.

My point in posting the results was merely because the original poster said liberals were smarter than republicans. But he didn't offer any supporting evidence.

So I did a google search on the web and found those statistics. They indicated a reverse correlation.

If the original poster now wants to produce evidence in support of his assertion, that would be cool.

But as of this moment, the only person posting any evidence one way or the other is me.

Of course it is open to scrutiny -- but at least it is something.

[NeXus]

For someone to think that there isnt a class warfare is livin under a rock. When people spend millions on just their mansion and some will never ever even make close to that in their entire lifetime, you cant tell me thats not a substancial difference of the classes.

All I think is that rich people should pay the same amount of taxes, percentage wise, as a poor person. And say fuck this off-shore banking, which cheats the gov. out of taxs and fuck these trade agreements which send our jobs overseas.

Also liberals are different that democrats. In reality Dems and Repubs are two heads of the same beast. Yes Dems are better just like Sadaam Hussein is better than Adolf Hitler, both bad, but one is better than the other.

bigbutnottoo seems to think that their is some left-wing democratic conspiracy to take over the world and to keep blacks repressed and kids stupid. Thats so off base theres not even a response for it besides your wrong. Oh, and your telling me that you would rather the Repubs do favors for heartless big oil and energy corporations than the Dems do favors for Teachers Unions? Your crazy. Oh and you fail to support your Slave Master George Bush of the No Child Left Behind Act. All you say is some rederick of a secret agenda which sounds like something from O'Reilly.

bobbdobbs
Maybe its just me but when I read the stats, I got this...

if you add up the Bachelors degree's percentages you get this,

50% of people who have Bachelors are Dems
38.4% of people who have Bach. are Repubs

and im not including Ind. and other party. Oh and for the record, when I said the thing about being smarter than Rebubs, I was referring to liberals being smarter not necessarily Dems. But your study proved my right anyways so, what the hell.

And Im not a Dem, I'm Independant.

so take the stats and bury them because they dont support your agrument, also I was wondering what State all you are from? Is it the Bible Belt? Deep South? Mississippi? just kidding but seriously where do y'all live? Maybe I'll do a study of my own...

[Spektrum]

NeXuS: There are not too many of us outspoken liberals out there. Mainly because we're tired of debating with people who feel like they are forced to pick a side. These people are usually pigheaded and even with blatant facts, will not even give your ideas a chance. Btw, our government does suck and anyone who fails to realize it is hopeless in my eyes. Our government no longer works for the people. Well, it does, but only a small percentage of us. Read the "Communist Manifesto", these principles apply to all countries, and our country is no different.

As far as class warfare, it's out there but you usually cannot see it. As someone who has been pennyless, I have seen my fair share of it. I remember fellow fast food workers purposely dropping change out the drive through window when handing it to someone in a new mercedes or similar. I've also seen terrible things done to food of snooty old ladies covered in jewelry. I've also seen hoopties drive really, REALLY slow in front of 50k-60k cars on purpose. The greatest thing I've seen recently was a couple of kids from the local ghetto when to a neighborhood with 500k+ houses and put dog shit in each persons mailbox.

While its non-violent, it's still class warfare. It will get worse as time goes on. If you don't believe me, read a history book. Look at how many revolutions occured in the late 1800's due to social oppression. Read some of the writings of Karl Marx(who co-wrote the Communist Manifesto), he also addresses it.

And in my opinion, anything over 90k/year is "rich". I don't care what the government classifies rich as.

[NeXus]

Spektrum,are you with me or against me? Do you think Im too outspoken?

Anyone who makes more than 90K is extremely rich. As far as the US and being super rich, the upper 1% of the country makes $250K or more a year. Thats who Bush gave the majority of his tax cuts to. The bottom 60% of the population got 14.7% of the overall tax cut.

In Tibilisi, Georgia, a bunch of civilians stormed the parliment in a non-violent way and burned the newly elected presidents chair. The countrys is now in a state of emergency. The people are demanding the president's removal from office because the recent election was rigged.

That would of been cool if that happened in the U.S. in 2000, when the Supreme Court took the presidency away from Gore and gave it to Bush. Like the Velvet Revolution.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
if you add up the Bachelors degree's percentages you get this,
50% of people who have Bachelors are Dems
38.4% of people who have Bach. are Repubs
In the sample group, there were 1.7 times as many democrats. However in the numbers you just quote, there are only 1.3 times as many Dems with Bachelors.

When you normalize the numbers, that means a democrat is less likely to have a Bachelors than a republican.

Apparently democrats and liberals aren't so smart or I wouldn't have to keep explaining this. :)

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
the upper 1% of the country makes $250K or more a year.
And pay 30% of the federal income taxes. The upper 5% pay 50% of the federal income taxes.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by Spektrum
Read the "Communist Manifesto" ... Read some of the writings of Karl Marx...
Then read about the collapse of Communism around the world due to the fact that their theories were divorced from reality.

Marx didn't have a clue how real economies worked, so the systems set up based on his theories produced shortages and in many cases starvation. The goods that were produced were of craptastic quality.

Communism and socialism cannot sustain freedom of choice -- and so are always at war with the people -- regulation and surpression are the order of the day.

When people are free, they make spontaneous markets between themselves. This cannot be allowed under communism or socialism -- and therefore Big Brother must montior everyone all the time.

Captialism is the only economic system consistent with freedom, because people are free to succeed -- or to fail.

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by NeXus


bigbutnottoo seems to think that their is some left-wing democratic conspiracy to take over the world and to keep blacks repressed and kids stupid. Thats so off base theres not even a response for it besides your wrong. Oh, and your telling me that you would rather the Repubs do favors for heartless big oil and energy corporations than the Dems do favors for Teachers Unions? Your crazy. Oh and you fail to support your Slave Master George Bush of the No Child Left Behind Act. All you say is some rederick of a secret agenda which sounds like something from O'Reilly.


How is it off base? Everything i have said is true at least in practice. Why do you think Democrats used a Hitler gun law to outlaw "Saturday Night "Nigger" Specials"? Everything in politics is about keeping your constituents content and ignorantly oppressed
Youve neveronce read anything I have written. I do not support George Bush. Cant stand him or Ashcroft. Ifyouread what I said, I even gave you a free point for George Bush. I am the one who brought up the point of oil- i didnt say that was better than Dem special interests. ALL specialinterests are pretty much bad. I'm an EO politico basher.As I said, I dont agree with No Child Left behind. The entire department of education should be abolished. As Much as I despise Bush, I always get sick of people blaming him for everything when most all Democrats and Republicans are just as bad. I am a libertarian.

Get it through your thick skull, that just because someone is not a communist doesnt mean he is a Republican.

[bigbutnottoo]

I enjoy debating politics as much as you all do, but I do have a suggestion. If we are going to argue U.S. politics, please read or understand the U.S. Constitution and have at least a Freshman understanding of Economics. Read something such as "Basic Economics." Arguing either ( Constitution or Economics) with me is akin to debating the Bible with God.


For whomever cares as far as where I am from,education,etc. I am not from the "deep south". I am from MD. In fact I kinda cringe whenever I drive into Virginia where I am greeted by Confederate flags.
Also, I have a Bachelor in Economics/Political Science,minor in History from a public university and am applying to Law School with an LSAT in the high 160s. I am a Mensan.

[Spektrum]

Originally posted by bobbdobbs
Then read about the collapse of Communism around the world due to the fact that their theories were divorced from reality.

Marx didn't have a clue how real economies worked, so the systems set up based on his theories produced shortages and in many cases starvation. The goods that were produced were of craptastic quality.

Communism and socialism cannot sustain freedom of choice -- and so are always at war with the people -- regulation and surpression are the order of the day.

When people are free, they make spontaneous markets between themselves. This cannot be allowed under communism or socialism -- and therefore Big Brother must montior everyone all the time.

Captialism is the only economic system consistent with freedom, because people are free to succeed -- or to fail.

NeXuS: Trust me, I'm totally with you.

If you actually read the communist manifesto, you would see that it was more about a classless society and socialism than communism.

Big brother should monitor the greedy rich, because if you do not, you end up getting the terrible laissez-faire capitalism that we have in this country. Why do you think markets such as power production are regulated? EVERY corporation should be regulated, but they are not because politicians get their pockets padded by them.

I do not feel bad for the top 1% paying 30% of the taxes. After paying taxes, the LEAST they see is 130k a year, which is still over 10x more than the 9k the $6/hr public servant is seeing.

I still do not understand how we as a country have a minimum wage that is well below the level of poverty. Does that make sense? Of course it doesn't, but the less you pay the worker, the more money you have to pay the stockholders and CEO's. That is a capatilist society. The one you speak so highly of.

This is the problem with America. Socialist countries like Canada do not have NEAR the amount of problems this country has with crime rates, the poor, health care, etc. But we Americans blindly love this failed system of Capitalism and will fight for it until the bitter end. Many people that are comfortable or well off do nothing more than fight for that comfort. They do not give two shits about the poor as long as they are comfortable. Too many of us have the 'who cares, as long as it doesn't affect me and the suburb I live in' attitude.

Let me tell you, it WILL affect you eventually. The poor will not take too much more of this oppression before they start revolting. It has happened in history many times and this country is due for another uprising. Personally, I do not think it will happen in the next 5 years, but if this country keeps on its current path, you will definitly see it in less than 10.

I really recommend reading "Dude, Where's My Country?". It might be a little extreme, but it is packed with facts(not opinions) that will make you lift an eyebrow or two.

[NeXus]

Im not really a gun-ho person, so Im not saying your wrong about the gun-control stuff. But you should watch Bowling for Columbine. Good documentary.

Im definatley not a communist. I just dont think its fair that people with so much money get to run our country. Its supposed to be a democracy of the people, not a select few.

I found a good site about Bush's Tax Cut.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb03st.htm

Now I know that you said that you dont support Bush. All Im saying there needs to be a new kind of capatalism instead of Crony Capatilism.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by Spektrum
Socialist countries like Canada do not have NEAR the amount of problems this country has with ... health care ...

From the Canadian Fraser Institute:

The comparative evidence is that the Canadian health care model is inferior to others that are in place in the OECD. It produces inferior access to physicians and technology, produces longer waiting times, is less successful in preventing deaths from preventable causes, and costs more than any of the other systems that have comparable objectives. The models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada’s monopoly-insurer, monopoly-provider system have: user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals that compete for patient demand. The overwhelming evidence is that Canada has a comparatively underperforming system of health care delivery...

[Spektrum]

Originally posted by bobbdobbs
From the Canadian Fraser Institute:

The comparative evidence is that the Canadian health care model is inferior to others that are in place in the OECD. It produces inferior access to physicians and technology, produces longer waiting times, is less successful in preventing deaths from preventable causes, and costs more than any of the other systems that have comparable objectives. The models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada’s monopoly-insurer, monopoly-provider system have: user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals that compete for patient demand. The overwhelming evidence is that Canada has a comparatively underperforming system of health care delivery...

At least everyone has health care over there. Our country runs and builds hospitals for other countries while a great percentage of Americans go without.

Canada's system is recognized as one of the best in the world. I don't know who wrote the above, but it does not seem to line up.

[NeXus]

The way prescription drugs are priced in Canada is this....

They have a new drug come out say, Paxil.

They price the drug of Paxil by takin the highest price on the market, which is the U.S. drug price. And the lowest of the top five prices around the world. Lets say Sweden had the lowest of the top five prices in the world.

They take the median of those numbers and the set the price of that drug to never excede the median. Pretty smart and fair.

Oh and the U.S. has one of the highest if not the highest prescription drug cost in the world. Charts show that US prices are somtimes double or more than others.

Dude, Where's My Country is a bible. What I love the most is that everything he says is backed by resources that are 100% accurate and he cites everything from major mainstream media sources. Unlike Ann Coulter who takes shit out of context and also knows that none of her readers are ever gonna look her shit up. Until Al Franken made her look stupid.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
Al Franken made her look stupid.
Al Franken goes around challenging everyone to fist fights. Yeah, he's a real rocket scientist all right.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by Spektrum
Canada's system is recognized as one of the best in the world.
That's a laugh. Huge waiting lists for life and death surgeries. When people cross borders for emergency health care -- it is massively from Canada to the US.

But something fundamentally horrible about Canada's system is that it is illegal for anyone to purchase health care.

You would think a fundamental right of any human being would be to make arrangements with who they please for health care.

Not in socialist paradise Canada though. You need government permission to attend to the health of your own body. That's outrageous.

Socialism is always a war against the individual. The individual is expendable in socialism. You have no worth as an individual per se under socialism -- you are only measured as a unit of society.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
the U.S. has one of the highest if not the highest prescription drug cost in the world. Charts show that US prices are somtimes double or more than others.
Which is actually humanitarian for the rest of the world, since we end up subsidizing drugs for poorer countries.

You see, the cost of manufacturing a drug is a small part of the cost of developing and testing it in the first place. Lots of drugs never get to market -- so lots of false starts cost lots of development money and it never gets paid back.

So successful drugs have to pay for their own development and a lot of dead end attempts. All very expensive.

So you price a drug to pay that development cost plus cost of manufacture -- amortized over some length of years. But if you can also sell that drug to a poorer country at a reduced price, you cover the net cost of manufacture and a little of the development cost. So the company has marginally increased its income versus expenses by selling cheap to poor countries.

But this only works with a tier system. They can't sell to everyone at the lower price -- so if governments force uniform prices, the poor countries won't be able to afford it. US consumers will lose those foreign marginal payers, and so the internal price of drugs will also go up.

So the current scheme of tiered pricing actually delivers the lowest price to both internal and external consumers.

Naturally, socialists who don't understand economics want to set prices -- which will screw up budgets for new drugs and really slow down the development of new drugs.

It's estimated that the FDA delay in approving the use of beta blockers cost 200,000 lives due to unnecessary heart attacks.

Delaying the introduction of new drugs kills people by omission. Socialists and liberals don't seem to be able to understand that concept.

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by bobbdobbs

It's estimated that the FDA delay in approving the use of beta blockers cost 200,000 lives due to unnecessary heart attacks.

Delaying the introduction of new drugs kills people by omission. Socialists and liberals don't seem to be able to understand that concept.

I guess they'd rather kill 200,000 than expose a couple million people to a 1% chance of a headache or diarrea.

[NeXus]

You act like America's health care is perfect. At least in Canada your not turned down help if you dont have insurance and cant afford it. Plus there's millions of people in America with no health insurance at all even though they have jobs. If these owners and CEO's of the companies, like Pfizer, would take a slight profit decrease then things could be different. But they sit on their greedy, rich fat asses only worried about their profit percentage. And now with this new Medicare bill passed by Bush, it allows the Insurance companies and Pharmeceutical companies to charge the government whatever they want for drugs. And they have the nerve to tell people they cant or shouldn't goto Canada to get the same drug for cheaper? I say fuck'em. Oh, Canada....

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by NeXus
You act like America's health care is perfect. At least in Canada your not turned down help if you dont have insurance and cant afford it. Plus there's millions of people in America with no health insurance at all even though they have jobs. If these owners and CEO's of the companies, like Pfizer, would take a slight profit decrease then things could be different. But they sit on their greedy, rich fat asses only worried about their profit percentage. And now with this new Medicare bill passed by Bush, it allows the Insurance companies and Pharmeceutical companies to charge the government whatever they want for drugs. And they have the nerve to tell people they cant or shouldn't goto Canada to get the same drug for cheaper? I say fuck'em. Oh, Canada....

1. I don't see anything wrong with "America's Healthcare" considering that term itself is a misnomer. My private health concerns are mine, not America's. I have used health care providers and I am happy with their service, billing etc.

2. The reality is: In America, hospitals will not turn you down for non-payment.People being turned down for health service is practically a myth. Thats why poor people or people with no insurance go to the emergency room instead of using a normal doctor, even if they only have a cold. They know they will get treated and not have to pay.

3.I dont have health insurance, and I dont want it. I sure as hell dont want the government forcing me to have it. When I was in college, I had it through my parents employer and it was a pain in the neck getting an apointment for anything, with the referrals, co-pays, non-pays,etc. Now I pay as I go-I prefer it that way and so far I save money.

4. Greed is good. The profit motive has basically been the catalyst for every significant innovation in modern history. However, I do agree that many CEOs are grossly overpaid, especially when they do a terrible job-it does sicken me to see massive layoffs while a CEO gets bonuses..BUT- that is really that company's choice and business. they can pay whatever they want.

5. There should be no Medicare Bill..or Medicare.

6. Right, we should be able to buy drugs from other countries. I have no problem with that.

[Spektrum]

Originally posted by bigbutnottoo

4. Greed is good. The profit motive has basically been the catalyst for every significant innovation in modern history. However, I do agree that many CEOs are grossly overpaid, especially when they do a terrible job-it does sicken me to see massive layoffs while a CEO gets bonuses..BUT- that is really that company's choice and business. they can pay whatever they want.


I really recommend watching John Q. It's about America's health system and the way it operates. Even though it is a movie, a lot of things in it hold true. I watched it with my mom, who's been a nurse for years and said things like that do happen(but usually not to children).

Greed is never good. It's definitly not the catalyst for every innovation in modern history. Look at what Henry Ford did. He raised his worker's salaries so they could afford the same cars they were building. He did this at his own expense and it was something modern CEO's would never even consider doing. (just a side note, I know he didn't invent the car, but did invent the assembly line, the reason we have so many cars today). We need more Henry Fords in this world.

I've always said, a lot of people live poor in this country, so a few can live rich.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by Spektrum
I really recommend watching John Q.
The unintended true message of John Q was that there is a scarcity of organ donors.

When the character Denzel played got his kid a donor organ, someone else didn't get it.

John Q didn't show the family waiting for the organ that Denzel's kid got.

[Spektrum]

Well, the INTENDED message of John Q was the money hungry corruption of hospitals and insurance companies.

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by Spektrum

Greed is never good.
It's definitly not the catalyst for every innovation in modern history.

Look at what Henry Ford did. He raised his worker's salaries so they could afford the same cars they were building.


First part: Definitely not true.

Second part: Ford did that precisely because it was good business, not out of any altruistic motive to help out his workers. As you said, he did it so they could buy his cars. Just reinforces what I said. Good business people are selfish and do things that will help their own business. Thats a good thing.

[bigbutnottoo]

To his credit, I do believe Denzel Washington agreed that what his character did in John Q was wrong.

Regardless of what the intended propaganda message was. The real deal is that no one has the right to something that is not their's, whether it is a pack of gum or a human organ.

[NeXus]

Theres a difference between the American Dream and fucking people over.

Do you think that the disgusting greed of Enron was good?

How about the mutual funds scandal?

or the Tyco CEO who threw himself a multi-million dollar birthday party? of course paid for at the expense of his investors and workers by charging it on the corporate account.

Greed is what supports lay-offs, tax loopholes, and other shameless acts of these pigs. They need to be slaughtered.

You are obviously a steal from the poor and give to the rich kinda person. I wish you could see what its like to be dirt poor, and see if you change your skewed views then.

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by NeXus
You are obviously a steal from the poor and give to the rich kinda person.
It is exactly this sort of righteous intolerance to differences in belief that gets kooks flying passenger planes into tall buildings.

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by NeXus

You are obviously a steal from the poor and give to the rich kinda person. I wish you could see what its like to be dirt poor, and see if you change your skewed views then.


I AM poor, and that's EXACTLY why I support free-market economic policies.

[Spektrum]

Originally posted by bobbdobbs
It is exactly this sort of righteous intolerance to differences in belief that gets kooks flying passenger planes into tall buildings.

Well I see that 3k people died for nothing. 9/11 was a message from terrorist organizations to the United States to stay out of the middle east and mind out own business. Not because of "righteous intolerance to differences". You think people would have gotten the message.

Did we?

Well, we did just overthrow the Iraqi government and the Afgani government...

[bobbdobbs]

Originally posted by Spektrum
Well I see that 3k people died for nothing. 9/11 was a message from terrorist organizations to the United States to stay out of the middle east and mind out own business. Not because of "righteous intolerance to differences". You think people would have gotten the message.

Pretty much the same message Jefferson Davis sent when he had his armies attack Fort Sumter -- all the south wanted was for the north to leave their system of slavery alone. Lincoln didn't get the message, I guess.

[Spektrum]

Originally posted by bobbdobbs
Pretty much the same message Jefferson Davis sent when he had his armies attack Fort Sumter -- all the south wanted was for the north to leave their system of slavery alone. Lincoln didn't get the message, I guess.

I agree that something needed to be done over in the middle east. There are so many injustices.

However, before the US goes around and polices the rest of the world, it needs to take care of itself first.

[goodbutnotgreat]

wow, this thing just exploded while i was away . . .

1. henry ford was a very brilliant, and very bad man.

2. america is not totally capitalist in any way, we have a strong socialist element in everything we do, so to decry socialist principles is to decry america's own, so far successful, economic system.

3. i forget which one, but somebody was sighting the old gun laws and stuff, the guy who also trumpets his intelligence (i think). man, i don't have time to research that shit, but you said you were a history minor, so then obviously you know that the south used to be solidly democratic and the parties have had different platforms several times over the years, so sighting shit from anything less than fifty years ago is just disinformation. the democrats of yesteryear aren't even distant cousins of the demos today. you should start looking at stuff like that if you want to have a career in the legal field. you'll get nailed and strung for spitting inaccuracies out there.

4. those stats from earlier . . . as always statistics aren't in the numbers, although i do appreciate bobbdobbs posting that link for me. i didn't actually have time to look at them much as i have been traveling but i can say that higher income individuals tend to be mroe fiscally conservative, and better education equals higher income. stats aren't everything, just something to look at.

5. 9/11 happened because of religous extremism that is able to proliferate because of poverty and desperation. i don't believe in enforcing our values all over the world just because i happen to think they're correct, that manifest destiny bullshit is dangerous. but i do know that free markets and democracy create wealth and stability, which does not facilitate societies pumping out young men filled with hatred and willing to die for some stupid book. although we have our share of those here i guess, they just tend not to bother other countries (not counting george bush . . . just kidding).

our government, especially congress, is run my tremendously accomplished and learned individuals. it is not always perfect, but it is functioning as planned. communism doesn't work, it is fine in theory and the manifesto has some great ideas, but liberal democracy and free markets have conquered the world, not communsim. and the world is the greatest market of all, and the stock being traded is ideas and civillization. i don't mean to pick a fight on the issue. pick up "the ideas that conquered the world" by michael mandlebaum. if you read the times he's in there a lot, it's a well rendered explanation.

things in america are continuing to improve in my opinion. we are still world leaders. we aren't perfect, but we work to make things better. it's just opinions about how the best way to go about this that differ.

also, al franken is very smart, he went to harvard and he was a poor kid. that guy rules.

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
wow, this thing just exploded while i was away . . .

2. america is not totally capitalist in any way, we have a strong socialist element in everything we do, so to decry socialist principles is to decry america's own, so far successful, economic system.

3. i forget which one, but somebody was sighting the old gun laws and stuff, the guy who also trumpets his intelligence (i think). man, i don't have time to research that shit, but you said you were a history minor, so then obviously you know that the south used to be solidly democratic and the parties have had different platforms several times over the years, so sighting shit from anything less than fifty years ago is just disinformation. the democrats of yesteryear aren't even distant cousins of the demos today. you should start looking at stuff like that if you want to have a career in the legal field. you'll get nailed and strung for spitting inaccuracies out there.



Thanks for taking the time to make those points. Since these ^^ were in reference to me, let me clear it up for you.

2. We have only been socialist since the 16th Ammendment was ( evdence points to illegally) ratified. FDR further pushed us over to the dark side.Yes,I do decry all socialist principles AND policies. I would further say many people decry socialist principles, yet support socialist policies because they are pragmatists.
If you say I oppose America, Well I DO support the Constitution, so I must oppose America in its current form, since EVERY single elected official (except for Maybe Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Kyle from AZ, and a couple others)opposes the US Constitution.

3. These "old" gun laws are from 1968. Also, I never said Democrats did that ( at least I dont think I did). I am not a Republican, but I do often stick up for Republicans when I see people giving Democrats a "free pass" and blaming Republicans. I am aware of the history of shifting political allegiances,etc. While you made good points, its not really relevant. I know what you mean about the legal field, but I didn't say anything innacurate. or anything I said was merely commentary, just like your boy Al Franken. He's not presenting evidence in court, so he has some leeway.

OK, now I think I know what you were talking about. I pointed out that many Democratic policies hurt black people and I tied that in with gun control being meant for black people (which is true). Well, it is true that black people are hurt by many Democratic policies and actually overwhelmingly support Republican policies such as School Vouchers (i support) and "faith-based" initiatives (I oppose). But the NAACP is "owned" by Democrats in the same way labor unions are.

Its no question that Democrats have helped create a modern day slave class. Are republicans better?Not , really; but they dont profess to be. At least Republicans are honest for the most part. They dont go around telling blacks or the poor that they are going to help them, because they know that is not the government's job.

This reminds me of a minidebate between Linda Chavez and a DNC honcho. He kept saying that Bill Clinton created 22 million jobs and George Bush didnt create any. She didnt dispute that, She stated the obvious " The government isn't supposed to create jobs." Anyone who doesn't know that, well.............

We need people in government like true American Janice Rogers Brown, who Dem, Teddy Kennedy and others blocked. Why? Why?
BECAUSE she is a BLACK LIBERTARIAN. And in the US, blacks and females are only allowed to be socialists. This is reality.

[NeXus]

It seems like we can agree on one thing. Anybody But Bush.

I think that Howard Dean and John McCain should go up against Bush next year. Because Dean has the most motmentum and support so far. And John McCain is one of the few great Republicans. McCain could get all the republican votes that Bush was going for 2000. Dean could get all the Democratic and left votes. Plus McCain knows a helluva a lot more than Bush about the military. Plus McCain actually served in Vietnam and was in prison for 6 years for his country. All Bush likes to do is go to his ranch and play dress-up for his weekly photo.

Did ya hear the speech in Baghdad on Thanksgiving? He said "we did not march miles into Baghdad only to retreat. We will not leave!" And then he hopped in a plane back to Crawford, Texas. He forgot to say, and when I say "we", I mean you."

[goodbutnotgreat]

bigbutnottoobig - shit sorry man, not sure how i missed this for so long. that is a long, well thought reply, sorry to just ignore it.

i'm pretty sure i was referring to your posts so it was a dick move to not respond at all.

that's interesting about the gun laws and such, i have never read anything about that, i hope to look them up and see for myself some time. as always your other statements are interesting, although i disagree with many of them (also as usual). anyway, just wanted to say sorry, i would feel kind of slighted if i took the time to write out a respnse that long and didn't have it read by the instigator.

[NeXus]

goodbutnotgreat, stop saying sorry, dont be a pussy!:blahblah:

just kiddin.....



" The government isn't supposed to create jobs."

Try running with that as your capaign slogan. They'll take ya down like Nixon!

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by NeXus




Try running with that as your capaign slogan. They'll take ya down like Nixon!


I know. The truth is usually not effective.

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by goodbutnotgreat
bigbutnottoobig - shit sorry man, not sure how i missed this for so long. that is a long, well thought reply, sorry to just ignore it.

i'm pretty sure i was referring to your posts so it was a dick move to not respond at all.

that's interesting about the gun laws and such, i have never read anything about that, i hope to look them up and see for myself some time. as always your other statements are interesting, although i disagree with many of them (also as usual). anyway, just wanted to say sorry, i would feel kind of slighted if i took the time to write out a respnse that long and didn't have it read by the instigator.

Good,
No problem. You tend to raise good points in your posts. Your concerns seem genuine and you ask questions that involve practical application rather than ideology and rhetoric.

[NeXus]

I was being sarcastic, you made a stupid statement. The President and congress can pass legislature that stimulate the economy, which in turn creates jobs. Not necessarily expanding government to create jobs.

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by NeXus
I was being sarcastic, you made a stupid statement. The President and congress can pass legislature that stimulate the economy, which in turn creates jobs. Not necessarily expanding government to create jobs.
It's still not their job (proper function).

[NeXus]

Sure it is, its their job in the court of public opinion. And since the people elect him, that makes it his job. If he failed this job, he would no longer have a job (proper function). :hammering

[bigbutnottoo]

Originally posted by NeXus
Sure it is, its their job in the court of public opinion. And since the people elect him, that makes it his job. If he failed this job, he would no longer have a job (proper function). :hammering

So you believe the government has no proper role?

[NeXus]

What the hell are you talkin about?