Politics is PURE garbage

[OnTheRocks]

Vote Smart is always a good start. Bookmark it.

592649[/snapback]

 

cool site...i will look at it in more detail later.

[KRC]

cool site...i will look at it in more detail later.

592726[/snapback]

 

They were the first people I contacted after announcing my candidacy in 2004. They get a decent amount of traffic and give you a good opportunity to check out all of the candidates. I received a lot of feedback from people as a result of that site, which resulted in votes. It also looks like they have added additional information on the candidates (interest group ratings, etc).

[The Avenger]

Ok, I'm oblivious to that fact.

 

590822[/snapback]

 

Dude - liberal media bias is true - Fox has been reporting for days now - where you been?

[EC-Bills]

Vote Smart is always a good start. Bookmark it.

592649[/snapback]

 

Thanks for the link!

[Like A Mofo]

Dude - liberal media bias is true - Fox has been reporting for days now - where you been?

592785[/snapback]

 

 

You really dont think there is a liberal bias across most media outlets? Are you feeling ok?

[The Avenger]

You really dont think there is a liberal bias across most media outlets?  Are you feeling ok?   

593236[/snapback]

 

Actually, I don't think there is a liberal bias to the media, and in fact, the opposite might just be true.

 

Conservatives have been brilliant when it comes to the media - they know how to get their message out loudly, clearly and ubiquitously - they've been destroying the left on this front for years.

 

Part of the strategy (quite brilliant, actually), is to continuously howl that there is a liberal bias in the media. This serves to keep the media on notice that they are being watched and any liberal slant will be noted. They call this "working the refs" to get any anvantage they can, and for the most part it's been very effective.

 

But just becase conservatives scream that there's a liberal media bias doesn't make it so. Are there examples of liberal media bias? You bet - lots, but there are also plenty of examples of conservative media bias (you don't hear aout that too much as the left does a poor job of bringing notice to it).

 

If you want some interesting reading, check out Eric Altman's book, "What Liberal Media?" - he does a thorough examination of media coverage and his findings may just surprise you.

[bobblehead]

Actually, I don't think there is a liberal bias to the media, and in fact, the opposite might just be true.

 

Conservatives have been brilliant when it comes to the media - they know how to get their message out loudly, clearly and ubiquitously - they've been destroying the left on this front for years.

 

Part of the strategy (quite brilliant, actually), is to continuously howl that there is a liberal bias in the media. This serves to keep the media on notice that they are being watched and any liberal slant will be noted. They call this "working the refs" to get any anvantage they can, and for the most part it's been very effective.

 

But just becase conservatives scream that there's a liberal media bias doesn't make it so. Are there examples of liberal media bias? You bet - lots, but there are also plenty of examples of conservative media bias (you don't hear aout that too much as the left does a poor job of bringing notice to it).

 

If you want some interesting reading, check out Eric Altman's book, "What Liberal Media?" - he does a thorough examination of media coverage and his findings may just surprise you.

593294[/snapback]

 

 

Thank you for all of this. Conservatives are masters at framing headlines. For example. an article you will see online, or in a paper, a report you watch on the evening news, can be very critical of the GOP, the administration, republicans in general. But almost always, the headline will be something to the effect, for example, "Bush Goes On The Offensive". So the article may be conservative-critical, but he most important part, the headline, will be pro-conservative.

 

You see this headline framing much more for the Conservative side than you do the Liberal side.

 

Also, the right has masterfully made "Liberal" a four-letter word. Again, what you might see, read or hear in the media could very well be conservative-critical, but almost always, any reference to liberals or liberalism, especially in the headline, is in a negative light.

 

I noticed this during the debates last year. Always, regardess of which of the 3 debates you were watching, when ever the word liberal was in a question from the moderator, it was always, always slanted negatively, as in "Is it true that you were the most liberal voter in the Senate"? Which automatically put liberalism in a bad light. Kerry should have jumped on this and said, "yes, why is that a bad thing"? But he tried to defend his voting as "not liberal". Because it was representatives from the national media doing the moderating, it really hit me hard that the national media is solidly trained and locked-down to treat liberalism as a dirty word. I had to commend the conservatives for 3 decades of training on that .

 

 

The Right has been working on this for over 30 years, it started in the 60's. They really know what they are doing in this regard.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Also,  the right has masterfully made "Liberal" a four-letter word.

593316[/snapback]

 

That's because it IS. There's nothing liberal in the classic sense about modern American liberalism. Modern American liberals tend toward socialist goals, i.e. Subsidized Healthcare and More involvement by the Department of Ed in everyday school affairs.

 

Socialism, despite its good intentions, will always be flawed for one simple reason. When you take away the incentive to succeed by redistribution of wealth, you take away what makes our economy great. You take away the desire of go-getters to succeed. Why would anyone want to be rich if they knew 50% of their wealth would be taken from them?

 

The pursuit of wealth drives innovation and it's one reason that America's economy has vastly outperformed the economies of Europe over the past 20 years.

 

We innovate. We strive to excel, rather than striving to create "comfortable" lives for all citizens. Do some people fail in our system? Sure. Some have to fail when others succeed. That's how life works.

 

And that, my friend, is why socialism is wrong. And it's also why liberal IS a "four-letter-word".

[OnTheRocks]

Thank you for all of this.  Conservatives are masters at framing headlines.  For example. an article you will see online, or in a paper, a report you watch on the evening news, can be very critical of the GOP, the administration, republicans in general.  But almost always, the headline will be something to the effect, for example, "Bush Goes On The Offensive". So the article may be conservative-critical, but he most important part, the headline, will be pro-conservative.

 

You see this headline framing much more for the Conservative side than you do the Liberal side.

 

Also,  the right has masterfully made "Liberal" a four-letter word. Again, what you might see, read or hear in the media could very well be conservative-critical, but almost always, any reference to liberals or liberalism, especially in the headline, is in a negative light.

 

I noticed this during the debates last year. Always, regardess of which of the 3 debates you were watching, when ever the word liberal was in a question from the moderator, it was always, always slanted negatively, as in "Is it true that you were the most liberal voter in the Senate"?  Which automatically put liberalism in a bad light.  Kerry should have jumped on this and said, "yes, why is that a bad thing"?  But he tried to defend his voting as "not liberal".  Because it was representatives from the national media doing the moderating, it really hit me hard that the national media is solidly trained and locked-down to treat liberalism as a dirty word.  I had to commend the conservatives for 3 decades of training on that .

The Right has been working on this for over 30 years, it started in the 60's.  They really know what they are doing in this regard.

593316[/snapback]

 

I think the media is neither liberal or conservative. i think the media is about making the media money. and lots of it. are there personalities in the media that push their agenda periodically? of course....Katie Couric...Sean Hannity are just a couple. but they are more about stirring controversy and creating an emotional response than anything else.

[Chilly]

That's because it IS. There's nothing liberal in the classic sense about modern American liberalism. Modern American liberals tend toward socialist goals, i.e. Subsidized Healthcare and More involvement by the Department of Ed in everyday school affairs.

 

Socialism, despite its good intentions, will always be flawed for one simple reason. When you take away the incentive to succeed by redistribution of wealth, you take away what makes our economy great. You take away the desire of go-getters to succeed. Why would anyone want to be rich if they knew 50% of their wealth would be taken from them?

 

The pursuit of wealth drives innovation and it's one reason that America's economy has vastly outperformed the economies of Europe over the past 20 years.

 

We innovate. We strive to excel, rather than striving to create "comfortable" lives for all citizens. Do some people fail in our system? Sure. Some have to fail when others succeed. That's how life works.

 

And that, my friend, is why socialism is wrong. And it's also why liberal IS a "four-letter-word".

593367[/snapback]

 

Liberal is a 7 letter word. Duh.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Liberal is a 7 letter word.  Duh.

593409[/snapback]

Thank you, Daniel Webster.

 

[The Avenger]

That's because it IS. There's nothing liberal in the classic sense about modern American liberalism. Modern American liberals tend toward socialist goals, i.e. Subsidized Healthcare and More involvement by the Department of Ed in everyday school affairs.

 

Socialism, despite its good intentions, will always be flawed for one simple reason. When you take away the incentive to succeed by redistribution of wealth, you take away what makes our economy great. You take away the desire of go-getters to succeed. Why would anyone want to be rich if they knew 50% of their wealth would be taken from them?

 

The pursuit of wealth drives innovation and it's one reason that America's economy has vastly outperformed the economies of Europe over the past 20 years.

 

We innovate. We strive to excel, rather than striving to create "comfortable" lives for all citizens. Do some people fail in our system? Sure. Some have to fail when others succeed. That's how life works.

 

And that, my friend, is why socialism is wrong. And it's also why liberal IS a "four-letter-word".

593367[/snapback]

 

Not sure how you are quantifying the US economy as "vastly outperforming the economies of Europe over the past 20 years".

 

I'm looking at per capita GDP growth and the U.S. is not at the top - it's 5th and it's behind countries far more "socialist" than the U.S. - Switzerland, Japan, etc.

 

Center for Economic Policy Report

 

I'd also say standard of living factors into how well a country is doing economically, and the U.S. lags behind many "socialist" European nations there, too, according to the UN Human Development Index

 

UN 2005 HDI Report

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Not sure how you are quantifying the US economy as "vastly outperforming the economies of Europe over the past 20 years".

 

I'm looking at per capita GDP growth and the U.S. is not at the top - it's 5th and it's behind countries far more "socialist" than the U.S. - Switzerland, Japan, etc.

 

Center for Economic Policy Report

 

I'd also say standard of living factors into how well a country is doing economically, and the U.S. lags behind many "socialist" European nations there, too, according to the UN Human Development Index

 

UN 2005 HDI Report

593443[/snapback]

 

A-ha-ha. How very clever. Make note that all FOUR nations ahead of the United States on the GDP growth chart share one trait in common: They consist of largely homogeneous, static-growth populations. That is, they generally share a common language and ethnic background and have zero or lower birth rates.

 

Three of the four countries ahead of the US are also tiny, therefore they require less in the way of total spending on their populations for basic services. The fourth, Japan, is well-acknowledged to have had negative growth over the past ten years, but in the prior thirty had achieved something of a miraculous growth rate. I'd suspect that since the chart starts in 1980, some of their GDP growth per capita can be attributed to that.

 

You may be asking yourself "Well, what does this have to do with anything?" Again, the answer is commonsense if you apply your gray matter for mere seconds. The United States has undergone MASSIVE immigration, legal and otherwise, over that 20-year span. New immigrants typically siphon off more from the economy than they add to it. ALSO, the US population is three times that of Japan's, and God only knows how much larger it is than Norway's or freaking Luxembourg's. Even IF you have a larger pie to split, which the US does, there are more people who want a slice. Ergo, each slice is smaller.

 

Now, since you artfully dodged the facts with your little chart, take note of where the HEART of the Euro-economy rates on your list.

 

UK: 14th

France: 15th

Italy: 19th

Germany: didn't make the list, likely due to negative growth -- as noted in footnotes section "3Only changes greater than five percentage points shown; countries with negative growth in both periods not shown."

 

Soooo... the largest economies in Europe--the heart of the European economy-- lagged behind the US over the 20-year period DESPITE their homogeneous, small(er), and largely prosperous populations.

 

Tell me again how socialism works?

 

Oh, and about this mystical HDI, I put little stock into an index which uses lifespan as part of the equation, simply because we take in more poor immigrants than any other nation on Earth. I have to think those immigrants skew the numbers downwards. And besides, a UN report? You may as well be quoting Mad Magazine.

[The Avenger]

A-ha-ha. How very clever. Make note that all FOUR nations ahead of the United States on the GDP growth chart share one trait in common: They consist of largely homogeneous, static-growth populations. That is, they generally share a common language and ethnic background and have zero or lower birth rates.

 

Three of the four countries ahead of the US are also tiny, therefore they require less in the way of total spending on their populations for basic services. The fourth, Japan, is well-acknowledged to have had negative growth over the past ten years, but in the prior thirty had achieved something of a miraculous growth rate. I'd suspect that since the chart starts in 1980, some of their GDP growth per capita can be attributed to that.

 

You may be asking yourself "Well, what does this have to do with anything?" Again, the answer is commonsense if you apply your gray matter for mere seconds. The United States has undergone MASSIVE immigration, legal and otherwise, over that 20-year span. New immigrants typically siphon off more from the economy than they add to it. ALSO, the US population is three times that of Japan's, and God only knows how much larger it is than Norway's or freaking Luxembourg's. Even IF you have a larger pie to split, which the US does, there are more people who want a slice. Ergo, each slice is smaller.

 

Now, since you artfully dodged the facts with your little chart, take note of where the HEART of the Euro-economy rates on your list.

 

UK: 14th

France: 15th

Italy: 19th

Germany: didn't make the list, likely due to negative growth -- as noted in footnotes section "3Only changes greater than five percentage points shown; countries with negative growth in both periods not shown."

 

Soooo... the largest economies in Europe--the heart of the European economy-- lagged behind the US over the 20-year period DESPITE their homogeneous, small(er), and largely prosperous populations.

 

Tell me again how socialism works?

 

Oh, and about this mystical HDI, I put little stock into an index which uses lifespan as  part of the equation, simply because we take in more poor immigrants than any other nation on Earth. I have to think those immigrants skew the numbers downwards. And besides, a UN report? You may as well be quoting Mad Magazine.

593468[/snapback]

 

Say what you will and write off any reports because they came from the UN rather than the ever-trustworthy Heritage Foundation, but I don't see ANYTHING to support your statement that the US economy has vastly outperformed those of Europe over the past 20 years - that statement just doesn't hold up to the facts (but feel free to show me ssome numbers that do make me sit back and say, "wow - we really DID do mcuh better than they did" - don't read this as a taunt - read this as an inviatation to show me data that supports your original statement).

[Chilly]

Thank you, Daniel Webster.

 

593418[/snapback]

 

My name's Chris Webster.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Say what you will and write off any reports because they came from the UN rather than the ever-trustworthy Heritage Foundation, but I don't see ANYTHING to support your statement that the US economy has vastly outperformed those of Europe over the past 20 years - that statement just doesn't hold up to the facts (but feel free to show me ssome numbers that do make me sit back and say, "wow - we really DID do mcuh better than they did" - don't read this as a taunt - read this as an inviatation to show me data that supports your original statement).

593473[/snapback]

 

Um, hello, the data is shown Here. Yes, from your very own source. Look at the list and then reread my post. For instance, We beat france's growth rate over the 20 year span by sixteen percentage points. Italy? 14 percentage points. The UK fared better, only 1 percentage point behind. But Germany, the largest economy in Europe didn't even make the list.

 

 

And they don't even have the population we do.

 

So check it again, reread my post and then reply, please.

[The Avenger]

Um, hello, the data is shown Here. Yes, from your very own source. Look at the list and then reread my post. For instance, We beat france's growth rate over the 20 year span by sixteen percentage points. Italy? 14 percentage points. The UK fared better, only 1 percentage point behind. But Germany, the largest economy in Europe didn't even make the list.

And they don't even have the population we do.

 

So check it again, reread my post and then reply, please.

593685[/snapback]

 

This chart does not prove your statement that the growth of the US economy has "vastly outperformed the economies of Europe over the last 20 years" - that's my point.

 

You now seem to be arguing that the US economy fared better (and not even substantially better) than France and Germany and barely better than the UK. You've also thrown out reasons why other European nations ourperformed the US - size, immigration, etc. all of which may have counter arguments themselves.

 

To argue that the US system beats "socialist" countries based on our vastly better economy would be borne out if the US finished at the top of the list and comfortably ahead of all European nations without all the conditions you have put on the results. I don't see that you've proven your statement.

[Bob Lamb]

This chart does not prove your statement that the growth of the US economy has "vastly outperformed the economies of Europe over the last 20 years" - that's my point.

 

You now seem to be arguing that the US economy fared better (and not even substantially better) than France and Germany and barely better than the UK.

 

 

For what it's worth - on growth alone

 

From the January 30th, 2006, "The Weekly Standard" article on Alan Greenspan's 18-year tenure written by Irwin Stelzer

 

"... the American economy grow at a quite satisfactory annual rate over 3% during Greenspan's tenure. This compares with 2.05 % in Japan, 2.25 % in France, 2.18% in Germany, 2.44% in Great Britian, 1.67% in Italy and, no surprise, 6.58% in low-tax Ireland."

 

"Perhaps more important, while major continental European countries seem unable to bring down double-digit employment, the American economy is close to full employment."

[ATBNG]

Think about it people....Bush speaks...then the Libs start becoming moderate for the elections...then they will change again...then Republicans will get angry...then they will change...then once the elections come, the Republicans will change their views again to win votes...its a vicious cycle and it will never ever end.

 

You watch the majority of the news stations that are SO one sides towards liberals...can  they ever say anything good to support the leader in power now?  Or is everything supposed to be NEGATIVE NEGATIVE???  Cant you all these ALL these networks (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, NBC are ALL garbage???  This crap is not worth the time people...all it is is entertainment driven to get people riled up and increase their ratings!!!!!

 

Screw this two party system, screw government......Ill never vote again...this country is going down the tubes!  Education is declining...morals?  What are those? (And Im not talking about religion)

590789[/snapback]

 

See, I have no problem with this sentiment. Politics and voting is the second most overblown thing in this country, besides "devotion to all things pop culture."

 

You can vote in every primary and general election from now until you die, and you have to be at least a 100-1 favorite never to cast a deciding vote in an election. So, in all honesty, why bother engaging in such a trivial task? People will give you guilt trips, or say it is your obligation as an American, but I think that is tripe. What politicians do is really out of your control - and if you wish to make an impact with one, you send them $100 rather than voting for one.

 

As noted above, the thing that makes our country stand apart is our economic freedom and diverse culture. History overemphasizes the right to vote and underemphasizes rights to property, income, freedom of religion, etc. If you had to choose between a country that had a 20% tax rate yet no right to vote versus a 50% tax rate where you were allowed to vote, sign me up immediately for the former. The 20% country is going to allow me to make more meaningful decisions every day on how I live my life; I can sacrifice particpating in an election where I only have a 100,000 to one shot to cast a meaningful vote in the first place.

[Boatdrinks]

But the way people hate Bush, nothing he ever does or says is good...EVERYTHING cannot be bad.

592642[/snapback]

But that IS the problem. It really IS all bad! First president I can truly say that about since I was old enough to vote. Billions upon billions squandered on Iraq, the economy sucks largely due to his failed policies, nothing to address health care, barely a tip of the hat toenergy. The guy actually supported Exxon raping the general public after natural disasters. This guy is the most clueless shill for big business we've ever seen. Most people are worse off under Bush, period. Even the value of the freakin' dollar has plummeted under his watch. I'll take 8 more years of Clinton in a heartbeat. Maybe if the Dems win the next election, we'll see some progress in things that MATTER to most Americans-like health care, not "moral values". Bush has duped religious folk into thinking he's on their "side". When he really only cares about the true "elite" in this country. The economically elite.