quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Where is the liberal press? Right in the same place where liberals have been seeing it as the comfortable staus quo for for decades. In the composition of the newsroom staff, and the editorial boards, and the people who book Sunday show guests that the hosts can poke, and prod, and try to get to say something stupid.

Jesus H. Christ, people. Confirmation bias is fine and natural, but maybe apply just a hint of reason? The booking numbers presented are just as easily evidence of the bias, if you feel the need to argue the case. Or, if we apply that hint of reason, and look for the simple, face value explanation, an indicator that the discussion this primary season is all on the Republican side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, I've known quite a few science and engineering majors who were pretty darn liberal. Conservatives tend to be business and economics majors, although a lot of conservatives I know are blue collar as well, never having attended college.

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: subspaceseven

It seems every GOP running for President has had more and more positive news coverage than our president. Seems there are many many many people out there that insist the news favors the "liberals" more. Something I have never agreed with, I mean look owns most of the media...giant corporations, and it seems they would want to protect their own interests over facts.

http://www.journalism.org/commentary_backgrounder/pejs_election_report

Even the Sunday new shows have far more people supporting the GOP on their shows than anyone, and it seems the favorite type of guest is white conservative males

According to the study, published in the April issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!:

Of one-on-one interviews, 70 percent of partisan-affiliated guests were Republican. Those guests were overwhelmingly male (86 percent) and white (92 percent).

The broader roundtable segments weren't much more diverse: 62 percent of partisan-affiliated guests were Republican. More broadly, guests classified as either Republican or conservative far outnumbered Democrats or progressives, 282 to 164. The roundtables were 71 percent male and 85 percent white.

U.S. government sources--current officials, former lawmakers, political candidates, party-affiliated political operatives and campaign advisers--dominated the Sunday shows overall (47 percent of appearances). Following closely behind were journalists (43 percent), most of whom were middle-of-the-road Beltway political reporters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
It's not that complicated I think. It's just that most of the news outlets are led by people who see the writing on the wall...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, I've known quite a few science and engineering majors who were pretty darn liberal. Conservatives tend to be business and economics majors, although a lot of conservatives I know are blue collar as well, never having attended college.

.

they are the sad cases. the constant theme of someone else getting over and something for nothing in refernce to the poor comard to their strugles fuels jealousy an danger based on lies It is used to anger them and the reality is more liike my Uncles 238k tax reduction in 2003 from 2000 becaue of the concentrated tax cuts platyoing oe and over and the calls to have them triple medicarecosts when they will retire with social securtity alone because they were anti union their whole lives. fear and misinformatuon drive them to vote against their own interests. they see welafare a s huge wastful program rather then 2 percent of thebudget and time limited. people fed bs cant make reaosned choices. i have a firnd with two special needs kids anunemployed collectingwife an a minumum wage job who says republican policies are good for him while he benefits form democtrats preventing programs he does depend on from being ended

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Where is the liberal press? Right in the same place where liberals have been seeing it as the comfortable staus quo for for decades. In the composition of the newsroom staff, and the editorial boards, and the people who book Sunday show guests that the hosts can poke, and prod, and try to get to say something stupid.

Jesus H. Christ, people. Confirmation bias is fine and natural, but maybe apply just a hint of reason? The booking numbers presented are just as easily evidence of the bias, if you feel the need to argue the case. Or, if we apply that hint of reason, and look for the simple, face value explanation, an indicator that the discussion this primary season is all on the Republican side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, I've known quite a few science and engineering majors who were pretty darn liberal. Conservatives tend to be business and economics majors, although a lot of conservatives I know are blue collar as well, never having attended college.

.

they are the sad cases. the constant theme of someone else getting over and something for nothing in refernce to the poor comard to their strugles fuels jealousy an danger based on lies It is used to anger them and the reality is more liike my Uncles 238k tax reduction in 2003 from 2000 becaue of the concentrated tax cuts platyoing oe and over and the calls to have them triple medicarecosts when they will retire with social securtity alone because they were anti union their whole lives. fear and misinformatuon drive them to vote against their own interests. they see welafare a s huge wastful program rather then 2 percent of thebudget and time limited. people fed bs cant make reaosned choices. i have a firnd with two special needs kids anunemployed collectingwife an a minumum wage job who says republican policies are good for him while he benefits form democtrats preventing programs he does depend on from being ended

If you really look at the way this country has been governed and the policies we have, there really is very little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. This is especially true when it comes to foreign policy.

Among the poor and working classes, there is definitely a profound resentment on the part of those who work for their money as opposed to those on the dole. Someone busting his butt working minimum wage can clearly see that his neighbors have the same basic standard of living, yet don't work. People at that level shop at the same stores as the food stamp recipients, who are often seen buying junk food on their food stamp cards. They also get state-provided health insurance which many working people can't afford. So, yeah, I can see why working people would tend to vote Republican.

As for being anti-union, not everyone has the option to join a union. I've worked in places where people get fired for attempting to start a union, but do any of the wealthy and powerful unions step up to help these people? Of course not. The unions only care about their own little cadres, and they don't give two shits about working people who could certainly use the help of a union. Union employees earn more money, get better benefits, and generally enjoy a higher standard of living. As long as they're perfectly happy with that, then they don't need to care about those who are beneath them on the food chain.

That's why a lot of people rolled their eyes in disgust over those union government employees in Wisconsin making a big stink. These people get all kinds of benefits and perks, living in nice homes and enjoying a luxurious lifestyle compared to those who have to truly struggle. They just want what (they think) is theirs, and they don't give a crap about ALL workers in America. Until these unions start putting their money where their mouth is, why shouldn't non-union working people be anti-union? What have the unions ever done for them?

Another example is here in Tucson, the local bus company is controlled by the Teamsters. So, in order to keep them happy, they keep raising bus fares, which affects the poor and working classes the most severely. In essence, by selfishly demanding so much for themselves, the unions are taking food out of the mouths of the poor and disadvantaged. So, yes, a lot of these people are probably going to be resentful of unions, and for good reason. Look at a heavily-Democratic, union-dominated city like New York, and examine how much it actually costs to live in a city like that. Many people in America could never even dream of affording to live in a city like that, yet Democrats are supposedly caring and compassionate about the poor? Maybe if they'd start demonstrating these qualities in their backyards, people in other areas of the country might actually believe them. It's the same in other heavily-Democratic cities like Los Angeles and Chicago. If one actually goes to these cities and see how Democrats truly operate when they're in their own element, then it's a real eye-opener.

I don't really like Republicans either, so I'm not defending or advocating for them either. A lot of working people tend to feel that they're screwed by both parties. While it is often said that people vote their pocketbooks, the sad fact remains that no matter which is in power, the pocketbooks of a lot of working people remain relatively the same. Since neither party seems willing to help out working people fill up their pocketbooks, then a lot of people tend to make their choices based on social issues, since they feel they'll be screwed economically either way. That's why the Republicans have been heavily pushing their social agenda more and more. The immigration issue has also become more divisive as well, and a lot of working people see that as threatening to their jobs and standard of living. So, they vote Republican because they think that will improve their standard of living.

The worst thing the Democrats can do at this point is to try to challenge the Republicans on that basis. What they need to do is go back and borrow a few pages from older strategies, but they seem too blind and myopic to do that. Case in point: Obamacare. They went about it all wrong. Instead of throwing so much money at that black hole called the medical industry, what they should have done was keep the same system and impose price controls. They could have made health care more affordable and accessible simply by imposing price controls on doctor, hospital, and pharmaceutical fees.

Why don't Democrats support price controls and tariffs on imports anymore? Did they wimp out, or what? Why did Clinton support and sign NAFTA into law, betraying working people and many of his own fellow Democrats? The Democrats have truly picked some strange battles in the past few decades, which has alienated large segments of the population who would have otherwise supported them. They're no longer the party of the working man; they're the party of the non-working man.

The party of FDR and JFK sold out a long time ago. That's the only reason why Republicans can get into office at all. Republicans don't win elections as much as Democrats lose elections. After Nixon went down in flames, the Democrats were in a highly advantageous position in which they had a chance to make some real changes for the better in this country. They blew it.

So, yeah, a lot of people who would probably benefit more by a Democratic leadership still don't vote Democratic because they might feel betrayed or have no confidence in their ability to run things. So, they vote Republican because they think it's the lesser of two evils. People who feel betrayed have good reason to be resentful and bitter, even if it means cutting off their nose to spite their face. But...that's politics for ya.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, I've known quite a few science and engineering majors who were pretty darn liberal. Conservatives tend to be business and economics majors, although a lot of conservatives I know are blue collar as well, never having attended college.

.

they are the sad cases. the constant theme of someone else getting over and something for nothing in refernce to the poor comard to their strugles fuels jealousy an danger based on lies It is used to anger them and the reality is more liike my Uncles 238k tax reduction in 2003 from 2000 becaue of the concentrated tax cuts platyoing oe and over and the calls to have them triple medicarecosts when they will retire with social securtity alone because they were anti union their whole lives. fear and misinformatuon drive them to vote against their own interests. they see welafare a s huge wastful program rather then 2 percent of thebudget and time limited. people fed bs cant make reaosned choices. i have a firnd with two special needs kids anunemployed collectingwife an a minumum wage job who says republican policies are good for him while he benefits form democtrats preventing programs he does depend on from being ended

As for being anti-union, not everyone has the option to join a union. I've worked in places where people get fired for attempting to start a union, but do any of the wealthy and powerful unions step up to help these people? Of course not. The unions only care about their own little cadres, and they don't give two shits about working people who could certainly use the help of a union. Union employees earn more money, get better benefits, and generally enjoy a higher standard of living. As long as they're perfectly happy with that, then they don't need to care about those who are beneath them on the food chain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Ok, Mupainurpleasure, you seem to have made some minor efforts towards spelling improvements, but you are still coming off with nothing more than a long, incoherent rant that bears little relation whatsoever to what I've said. Slow down. Take a deep breath. Think twice, post once, as fellow who isn't around anymore liked to say in these discussions.

Since you made an effort though, and since, as a conservative, I respect individual efforts at self-improvement to meet a goal, I'll just cherry-pick something from your reply to address.

The Sherrod tape was not about whether or not she was a racist. That was merely the spin of distraction, so there was something to talk about other than the recording of an NAACP audience busting up with anticipatory laughter at the prospect of a story about a black woman with a little bit of power sticking it to white people because she could.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr=

The Liberal Press is a myth promulgated by the Grand Right Wing Conspiracy being itself a phrase coined by the Liberal Progressive establishment to suit its own purposes.

It's all one giant circle jerk no matter which hand is involved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, I've known quite a few science and engineering majors who were pretty darn liberal. Conservatives tend to be business and economics majors, although a lot of conservatives I know are blue collar as well, never having attended college.

.

they are the sad cases. the constant theme of someone else getting over and something for nothing in refernce to the poor comard to their strugles fuels jealousy an danger based on lies It is used to anger them and the reality is more liike my Uncles 238k tax reduction in 2003 from 2000 becaue of the concentrated tax cuts platyoing oe and over and the calls to have them triple medicarecosts when they will retire with social securtity alone because they were anti union their whole lives. fear and misinformatuon drive them to vote against their own interests. they see welafare a s huge wastful program rather then 2 percent of thebudget and time limited. people fed bs cant make reaosned choices. i have a firnd with two special needs kids anunemployed collectingwife an a minumum wage job who says republican policies are good for him while he benefits form democtrats preventing programs he does depend on from being ended

If you really look at the way this country has been governed and the policies we have, there really is very little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. This is especially true when it comes to foreign policy.

Among the poor and working classes, there is definitely a profound resentment on the part of those who work for their money as opposed to those on the dole. Someone busting his butt working minimum wage can clearly see that his neighbors have the same basic standard of living, yet don't work. People at that level shop at the same stores as the food stamp recipients, who are often seen buying junk food on their food stamp cards. They also get state-provided health insurance which many working people can't afford. So, yeah, I can see why working people would tend to vote Republican.

As for being anti-union, not everyone has the option to join a union. I've worked in places where people get fired for attempting to start a union, but do any of the wealthy and powerful unions step up to help these people? Of course not. The unions only care about their own little cadres, and they don't give two shits about working people who could certainly use the help of a union. Union employees earn more money, get better benefits, and generally enjoy a higher standard of living. As long as they're perfectly happy with that, then they don't need to care about those who are beneath them on the food chain.

That's why a lot of people rolled their eyes in disgust over those union government employees in Wisconsin making a big stink. These people get all kinds of benefits and perks, living in nice homes and enjoying a luxurious lifestyle compared to those who have to truly struggle. They just want what (they think) is theirs, and they don't give a crap about ALL workers in America. Until these unions start putting their money where their mouth is, why shouldn't non-union working people be anti-union? What have the unions ever done for them?

Another example is here in Tucson, the local bus company is controlled by the Teamsters. So, in order to keep them happy, they keep raising bus fares, which affects the poor and working classes the most severely. In essence, by selfishly demanding so much for themselves, the unions are taking food out of the mouths of the poor and disadvantaged. So, yes, a lot of these people are probably going to be resentful of unions, and for good reason. Look at a heavily-Democratic, union-dominated city like New York, and examine how much it actually costs to live in a city like that. Many people in America could never even dream of affording to live in a city like that, yet Democrats are supposedly caring and compassionate about the poor? Maybe if they'd start demonstrating these qualities in their backyards, people in other areas of the country might actually believe them. It's the same in other heavily-Democratic cities like Los Angeles and Chicago. If one actually goes to these cities and see how Democrats truly operate when they're in their own element, then it's a real eye-opener.

I don't really like Republicans either, so I'm not defending or advocating for them either. A lot of working people tend to feel that they're screwed by both parties. While it is often said that people vote their pocketbooks, the sad fact remains that no matter which is in power, the pocketbooks of a lot of working people remain relatively the same. Since neither party seems willing to help out working people fill up their pocketbooks, then a lot of people tend to make their choices based on social issues, since they feel they'll be screwed economically either way. That's why the Republicans have been heavily pushing their social agenda more and more. The immigration issue has also become more divisive as well, and a lot of working people see that as threatening to their jobs and standard of living. So, they vote Republican because they think that will improve their standard of living.

The worst thing the Democrats can do at this point is to try to challenge the Republicans on that basis. What they need to do is go back and borrow a few pages from older strategies, but they seem too blind and myopic to do that. Case in point: Obamacare. They went about it all wrong. Instead of throwing so much money at that black hole called the medical industry, what they should have done was keep the same system and impose price controls. They could have made health care more affordable and accessible simply by imposing price controls on doctor, hospital, and pharmaceutical fees.

Why don't Democrats support price controls and tariffs on imports anymore? Did they wimp out, or what? Why did Clinton support and sign NAFTA into law, betraying working people and many of his own fellow Democrats? The Democrats have truly picked some strange battles in the past few decades, which has alienated large segments of the population who would have otherwise supported them. They're no longer the party of the working man; they're the party of the non-working man.

The party of FDR and JFK sold out a long time ago. That's the only reason why Republicans can get into office at all. Republicans don't win elections as much as Democrats lose elections. After Nixon went down in flames, the Democrats were in a highly advantageous position in which they had a chance to make some real changes for the better in this country. They blew it.

So, yeah, a lot of people who would probably benefit more by a Democratic leadership still don't vote Democratic because they might feel betrayed or have no confidence in their ability to run things. So, they vote Republican because they think it's the lesser of two evils. People who feel betrayed have good reason to be resentful and bitter, even if it means cutting off their nose to spite their face. But...that's politics for ya.

see, the thing is most people on the Dole work. We have undercut labor laws and support for unions to the degree it's impossible to organize and unethical shop. An example the wall mart greeter with 2 kids and a wife a cashier. He gets food stamps, he gets childrens health insurance subsidies he may get fuel oil assitance and his kids free lunch. That's what the dole looks like now. Meanwhile walmart makes huge profits and can continue to pay the man nothing because we make up the difference between what he is paid and a living wage. It is the worker on the dole it's walmart who through those programs and the rights slow strangulation of a relevant minimum wage can pass off some salary on taxpayers. Welfare is time restricted now the idea of a generational dole is gone. the worst though is the tax fairness. The right pretends social security hasnt been taxed twice cost for 26 yrs and that 15 percent tax on wages doesnt count. 7.5 is the employer portion of that but really it's calculated into the paid wage. By ignoring that they can claim we have a progressive tax system and the wealthy pay to much. The thing is when you ad in social security my rate is triple Mitt Romneys and no they call for more high end cuts? Whoreports that a guy making 105k is paying triple Mitt Romney or George Soros tax rate now? hell whenSheriff racist from AZ started spouting birther nonsense we got another 2 weeks of press about a disproven lie

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Ok, Mupainurpleasure, you seem to have made some minor efforts towards spelling improvements....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

It wasnt reported as such. When you report lies you are a liar. I would be interested specifically in why if the highest earners have seen an avg increase in pay of 8 percent a yr for 30 yrs along with 20 percent reduction in tax rate you sight busdrivers as a problem for being greedy and not those who have seen triple the pay increase.


You accused unions of not aiding in organizing or assiting those hurt by illegal company actions. I pointed out the root cause of qwhythat can happen is the eviseration of the NLRB by conservatives. I pointed out they did in fact fight for them but when the vehicle to enforce labor laws is purposefully hobbled and the penalties for breaking llabor laws negligible management hires consultants to break laws..that's the way it works. Unionism is beat down by illegal actions

Your referenced an obsolete picture of public assistance. i thought it worthy to educate you a lot of it is driven by a corporate culture that has lost all sense of the traditional 20th century social contract revolving around employment and a living wage
i agre abut nafta but it really was just signed by him it was pure Reagan Bush and marketed so well it would of passd a veto

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Actually, I've known quite a few science and engineering majors who were pretty darn liberal. Conservatives tend to be business and economics majors, although a lot of conservatives I know are blue collar as well, never having attended college.

Both sides have their highly educated partisans, as well as their share of laborers, menial workers, burger flippers, etc. When people choose to be liberal or conservative, I think it's more a question of personal values more than whatever level of education they've attained. But this doesn't seem to stop the partisanship where conservatives are labeled as "uneducated hicks," while the liberals are labeled "ditzy airheads from the Land of Fruits and Nuts." [:D]

What strikes me about conservatives is that they seem to be more malleable over the course of time, becoming more and more "liberal" in the process. For example, during FDR's time, conservatives were staunchly critical of FDR's New Deal programs, but nowadays, conservatives praise FDR as if he was God. I can't even count how many conservatives strongly criticize Patton and MacArthur these days, while giving undying praise to Truman and FDR.

There are no old guard conservatives anymore, no more isolationists. Even the aptly named Grandfather of Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, doesn't seem all that popular amongst establishment level conservatives anymore. They still love Reagan, though, but Reagan was probably a bit more liberal than Goldwater was.

Heck, I even remember when conservatives used to hate rock and roll with a passion, but now, they love rock and roll. There are even some conservative rockers nowadays.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

You are aware aren't you that, the average Wal-Mart employee makes over $11.00 an hour (easy work) and that when a Wal-Mart opens (anywhere on Earth), with ZERO ads, there are lines for blocks for applications to work there and I, as an employer who pays starting wages of $22.00 an hour (VERY fucking difficult work) can't get 3 people to show up with 7 ads in 7 local papers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
Conservative is from the root word conserve, and the general position of conservatives is either opposing change, or repealing recent changes. Therefore if you go back far enough, you can find conservatives opposing all sorts of things that we take for granted now.
I'm a "liberal," because I think gays should be able to get married, and that we need a better health care system. 40 years ago, someone who thought Blacks were equal to Whites and deserved the right to vote and equal treatment was a "liberal." Now that is "normal."
40 years from now, gay marriage will be accepted and obvious, and folks who are "liberal," will be pushing a new change. I may be opposed to that change, and will therefore have become "conservative." Did I change, or did the world change around me?
Lincoln was a liberal, as was Teddy Roosevelt (national park system), and all the founding fathers (liberals who rejected the conservative notion of kings).