NationStates Jolt Archive

With vitrolic conservative movie reviews like this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20515), and this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18596), coming out with only the flimsiest of pretexts, why is there such a dearth of the liberal equivalent.

I was watching "the Island" for the first time last night (because it was on cable) and I realized that it was based on the public uneasiness over theraputic cloning. There's nothing new about this, all good sci-fi bases it's movies on things that people in the real world are bothered by. Even the original Superman was based on the writer's attitudes regarding opposition to the New Deal (well, not the original original. he was a villain).

But what I'm wondering is why aren't there so many liberal reviewers complaining about conservative propaganda in movies when it's right there to see. This isn't the only example. It's been going back to 50's movies like The Blob and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Hulk and Godsend were both anti-cloning and anti stemcell movies in the last 5 years. But no backlash from the liberals who supposedly control the media.

And I'm not even going to bother with the Conservative uproar over all the animated Disney movies (every fucking time!).

Why is it that conservatives get their panties in a bunch looking for anti-conservative messages that they make up, but you never see the same thing coming from liberals?

Because liberals tend to be more informed and accepting, while conservatives want to keep things the way they were in the past. It's in the very meaning of the words.

Because liberals tend to be more informed and accepting, while conservatives want to keep things the way they were in the past. It's in the very meaning of the words.

Damnit TG, you've gone and done it again. There's nothing left to discuss.

Because liberals tend to be more informed and accepting, while conservatives want to keep things the way they were in the past. It's in the very meaning of the words.

My my aren't we biased.

Why is it that conservatives get their panties in a bunch looking for anti-conservative messages that they make up, but you never see the same thing coming from liberals?

Maybe we're too busy corrupting children, pushing the gay agenda, subverting the government, opposing the troops and hating america to have any time left to spew our venomous comments at conservative movies. :rolleyes:

[/sarcasm]

ive asked myself the same thing.

where are the rush limbaugh of the left?

i think that the rightwingnutjobs of radio, tv, and newspaper editorials are so over the top that righties love them and lefties cant keep from tuning in. whereas the leftwingnutjobs are so annoying to their leftie constituency that its hard to tune in to them even when you agree most of the time. the people on airamerica for example (is air america still going? i could never get the "local" station on a consistent basis) say things as outrageous as the rightist radio guys do but it just pisses ME off when they say it. i cant be like the rigthtist audience and buy every stupid over-the-top comment made by a radio personality.

so the lefties dont get the audience or the publicity that the righties get.

ive asked myself the same thing.

where are the rush limbaugh of the left?


Al Gore
Al Franken
Michael Moore
Anyone on Air America
Cindy Sheehan
Hillary Clinton
Barbra Striestand

need I go on?

Probably because there aren't that many movies with a clearly right-wing slant. I've heard sanctimonious assholeness from the left before but not about movies.

My my aren't we biased.

It is to laugh. He hit your nail right on the head, yet you bleat 'bias'. How amusing.

We do, if we're honest about it. Instead of 'corrupting our morals' we complain of explotation, or desparity of representation. It's a different kind of bitching.

But then there are some of use who know that occasionally a conservative film just makes a fun movie to watch, and we know that there's a difference between what makes a good movie and what makes a good reality.

so the lefties dont get the audience or the publicity that the righties get.

yet the right still complains about the "liberal" media, despite having their own private news network(hint: starts with an "F" ends with "ox News")

It is to laugh. He hit your nail right on the head, yet you bleat 'bias'. How amusing.

I said biased because that post was biased.

Al Gore
Al Franken
Michael Moore
Anyone on Air America
Cindy Sheehan
Hillary Clinton
Barbra Striestand

need I go on?

Speaking of biased. No one gives Sheehan the time of day buy rightwing nutjobs. As opposed to conservatives, liberals alienate the crackpots instead of embracing and flaunting them.

Al Gore
Al Franken
Michael Moore
Anyone on Air America
Cindy Sheehan
Hillary Clinton
Barbra Striestand

need I go on?

yes, but this time with some attempt at non-ridiculousness.

I said biased because that post was biased.

It's opinion. It can be as biased as he likes. Drop the 'OMG!1! Mod Bias' crap before you make an ass of yourself.

It's opinion. It can be as biased as he likes. Drop the 'OMG!1! Mod Bias' crap before you make an ass of yourself.

I believe you just made an ass of yourself more so than I did. I was actually pretty calm about the whole thing, then here you come along, and wow.

Conservative and liberal have become meaningless these days. Nobody can agree on what they mean, or who is actually a liberal or a conservative really.

I suggest dropping them, and defining individuals based solely upon their own idosyncratic deficiencies.

My my aren't we biased.

If conservatives don't want to just conserve the past, then they should call themselves something more fitting.

Like 'Reactionary'.

I said biased because that post was biased.

not really he just explained liberalism and conservatism's fundementals, he never said either one of them was better. I'm a conservative(well socially anyway) and I didn't find it bias.

Al Gore
Al Franken
Michael Moore
Anyone on Air America
Cindy Sheehan
Hillary Clinton
Barbra Striestand

need I go on?


Sure. Name one that lies as much as Limbaugh or displays his level of racism or hypocrisy. Al Gore not being Amish does not count as the same level of hypocrisy as saying that everyone who uses drugs illegally should go to jail, and the answer to the racial discrepency with enforcment is not to examine the motives, but to simply lock white people up more. Then get caught taking drugs illegally and getting the ACLU to help defend him.

I said biased because that post was biased.

If you regard the truth as biased, then his post was biased. If, however, you regard the truth as being a mere statement of the way things are, without any value judgement attached, then it cannot be biased, as bias is all about agreeing or disagreeing with your personal values.

Now the right has very clear set moral values, which they very vocally support and insist that all should adopt. The left, on the other hand, has a set of moral values that are based on inclusiveness, so there is no demand that others should adopt their viewpoint. (I, by the way, fall on the right of center in my views - so accuse me of bias as well if you want, it would be rather funny.)

Probably because there aren't that many movies with a clearly right-wing slant. I've heard sanctimonious assholeness from the left before but not about movies.


I've pointed out several with far more blatant Right-wing slants. Yet liberals don't make a big deal out of it. You'd think they'd cry all the louder if they had fewer movies to cry about.

Conservative and liberal have become meaningless these days. Nobody can agree on what they mean, or who is actually a liberal or a conservative really.

I suggest dropping them, and defining individuals based solely upon their own idosyncratic deficiencies.


Problem is, as long winded as political speeches are now, imagine if they had to address each person's concerns individually. No wonder politicians want to keep the voting numbers down.

Liberals aren't as willing to accept what someone else tells them as Gospel, so we don't deify our side's nutjobs like conservatives do.

need I go on?
Al Gore
Not the least bit radical (or obnoxious - in fact, rather polite and soft-spoken as politicians go), and has been in the public eye once since he got an election stolen from him.
Al Franken
Anyone on Air America
As someone mentioned... Air America doesn't get much press in any case.
Michael Moore
A documentarian, who puts out a film every so often. Neither obnoxious, nor loud, nor frequently put on the air.
Cindy Sheehan
A one-woman protest engine. No radio show, no TV show, no TV or newspaper column, just the [very occasional] coverage of her on her mission.
Hillary Clinton
A senator about whom more is said than she says. Frankly, that you would compare her to Rush Limbaugh is absurd; you probably have heard more about Hillary Clinton from Rush than you have heard from Hillary Clinton.
Barbra Striestand
Who? She's political? What?

There's nothing like the right-wing nutjobs in the right-wing media on the left.

Now the right has very clear set moral values, which they very vocally support and insist that all should adopt.
No they do not. The American Right wing's moral values depend on what the Republican politicians are doing. Their moral "values" usually simply change to approve what Republican politicians are doing.

Here is why I think the post was bias. For those who can't see it.

Because liberals tend to be more informed and accepting, while conservatives want to keep things the way they were in the past. It's in the very meaning of the words.

This post implies that Conservative are not informed and are not accepting. Thus we have a bias slant in the post.

I've pointed out several with far more blatant Right-wing slants. Yet liberals don't make a big deal out of it. You'd think they'd cry all the louder if they had fewer movies to cry about.

Most liberals probably realize that they have nothing to gain from doing it...if anything, people who whine about movies don't get a lot of sympathy from anyone, including those who share their political persuasion. Movies are entertainment...sometimes, even if there's a political slant we like to forget it just to be entertained for a while.

I said biased because that post was biased.


Yes, but to be taken seriously you have to say a bit more.

Bias means more than favoring one side or another. It is not biased to say that OJ was probably guilty. That's what the evidence said.

To establish bias you must show how data is being interpreted in a contrived way to arrive at a predetermined outcome.

I should point out that most network and 24 hour news meets these criteria for conservative bias. FOX news often does not. FOX news doesn't focus more on data that they like and diminish that they don't like, even out of proportion to reality. The just lie. Which isn't the same as a bias. MSNBC and CNN have conservative biases. FOX News has conservative fraud.

Here is why I think the post was bias. For those who can't see it.



This post implies that Conservative are not informed and are not accepting. Thus we have a bias slant in the post.


But you have no evidence that conservatives aren't less informed.

In the last election it was shown that pro-Bush peole were under a great many minconceptions about what Bush wanted and stood for.

Viewers of FOX news are actually less informed than people who watch no news at all.

You aren't informed about what constitutes a bias.

There's quite a bit of evidence that conservatives are misinformed, but you haven't countered any of it.

The anti-immigrant agenda, the anti-gay agenda, and the anti equal opportunity agenda are all conservative ones. Conservatives are less accepting.

Problem is, as long winded as political speeches are now, imagine if they had to address each person's concerns individually. No wonder politicians want to keep the voting numbers down.

Yea. But what I meant was stop letting politicians self-label. Or the media define people in thirty seconds.

Clinton didn't always behave like a stereotypical liberal, nor does GW always behave like a conservative. It's intellectual laziness to just assign them to a poorly defined group.

Also, Rush Limbaugh is just a fat sack of shit. I lolled when he was caught coming back from the dominican R with viagra. If I was less lazy I would call him and ask him about his feelings on the sanctity of marriage. Arsehole.

No they do not. The American Right wing's moral values depend on what the Republican politicians are doing. Their moral "values" usually simply change to approve what Republican politicians are doing.

There is more than America in the world you know. The right wing is a political ideology that is international in scale - and is far from dependant upon what the politicians of one political party in one country are doing.

The left, on the other hand, has a set of moral values that are based on inclusiveness, so there is no demand that others should adopt their viewpoint.
The Right doesn't demand that you adopt their viewpoint either, merely that you act according to a restrictive moral code. The Left wants the same thing, which is why both groups are in the business of governing.

I always thought that Hollywood was already pwned by liberals...

There is more than America in the world you know. The right wing is a political ideology that is international in scale - and is far from dependant upon what the politicians of one political party in one country are doing.
I thought we were only talking about America in this thread, in which case my comments are true.

In Europe I find that the left is much more upfront about its moral beliefs than the right.

This post implies that Conservative are not informed and are not accepting. Thus we have a bias slant in the post.
Conservatives are less informed, it's been proven.

The Right doesn't demand that you adopt their viewpoint either, merely that you act according to a restrictive moral code. The Left wants the same thing, which is why both groups are in the business of governing.
Are you some sort of anarchist?

Ok, for those of you who say that Conservative are less inform, prove it. Show me sources (unbiased) in which proves it. CNN does not count.

Ok, for those of you who say that Conservative are less inform, prove it. Show me sources (unbiased) in which proves it. CNN does not count.

Any more than Fox News does. I don't know if I'd say conservatives are less informed, but IMO, they are more likely to dismiss evidence that does not fit their preconceived prejudices[sp?].

What exactly is bias?

I see my liberal friends as being more open to intellectual inquiry than my conservative friends. They are more open minded, they form conclusions later, they remain in education longer, they are more inclusive of diversity of opinion.

I see my conservative friends as generally being closed to all those things. They feel they already know what they need to know, they are certainly not sticking around for postgrad study, those that bothered with university in the first place, they are not particularly interested in continuing to inquire further, they are not interested in seeking out and perhaps adopting other views, and by and large they do not embrace diversity - viewing ethnic minorities and homosexuals in particular, with suspicion.

Am I displaying bias in sharing my observations of life?

Liberals embrace social change, conservatives resist it. This is the defining characteristic of both mindsets. These are indeed, properties which through history, were worn with pride. Resisting change was a massive sellling point which acted in the British Conservative Party's favour for much of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

If you feel this reflects poorly upon you as a conservative, ask yourself, why? How can one act offended when a lack of open-mindedness is implied, while presumably wearing the conservative label with pride?

Me, I'm a centrist pretty much free to piss on both sides. I take from what aspects of all sides I like, I criticise or ridicule the rest. Make up your mind where you stand. You can't really complain about liberals and then say, hey, not fair, they get to have all the cool intellectual stuff.

What exactly is bias?

I see my liberal friends as being more open to intellectual inquiry than my conservative friends. They are more open minded, they form conclusions later, they remain in education longer, they are more inclusive of diversity of opinion.

I see my conservative friends as generally being closed to all those things. They feel they already know what they need to know, they are certainly not sticking around for postgrad study, those that bothered with university in the first place, they are not particularly interested in continuing to inquire further, they are not interested in seeking out and perhaps adopting other views, and by and large they do not embrace diversity - viewing ethnic minorities and homosexuals in particular, with suspicion.

Am I displaying bias in sharing my observations of life?

Liberals embrace social change, conservatives resist it. This is the defining characteristic of both mindsets. These are indeed, properties which through history, were worn with pride. Resisting change was a massive sellling point which acted in the British Conservative Party's favour for much of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

If you feel this reflects poorly upon you as a conservative, ask yourself, why? How can one act offended when a lack of open-mindedness is implied, while presumably wearing the conservative label with pride?

Me, I'm a centrist pretty much free to piss on both sides. I take from what aspects of all sides I like, I criticise or ridicule the rest. Make up your mind where you stand. You can't really complain about liberals and then say, hey, not fair, they get to have all the cool intellectual stuff.

*bows down to Tactical Grace*

The Right doesn't demand that you adopt their viewpoint either, merely that you act according to a restrictive moral code. The Left wants the same thing, which is why both groups are in the business of governing.

The left does not do the same thing. The only restriction that the left-wing moral code imposes is "stop treating people like shit."

If you think that's too restricting, then no wonder you think that the left is as bad as the right.

The right is all about pointing out people that they think deserve to be treated like shit.

Any more than Fox News does. I don't know if I'd say conservatives are less informed, but IMO, they are more likely to dismiss evidence that does not fit their preconceived prejudices[sp?].

They are less informed. The statistics have been compiled. The 70% of the people who thought that Saddam was behind 9/11 were not liberals.

The people who think that raising minimum wage hurts the economy are not liberals.

The "Swift Boat Vetrans" and those who believed them (and believe them still) were not liberals.

The people who think that the death penalty deters murderers are not liberals.

The people who think that Clinton made it easier to get welfare are not liberals.

The people who think that we have a real, declared war "on terror," that justifies limiting civil liberties are not liberals.

The people who think that the ACLU supports NAMBLA and wants to outlaw religion are not liberals.

The people who think that marijuana is a gateway drug that's more dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol are not liberals.

The people who think that marijuana has no medical uses are not liberals.

The people who think that people are not equal, but all "scientific" studies are, are not liberals.

The jury is in. Conservatives are less informed. That's why they have "con" right in their name.

Ok, for those of you who say that Conservative are less inform, prove it. Show me sources (unbiased) in which proves it. CNN does not count.

LOL!

I thought you were serious up until I read this post. Sorry. I guess your humor was too subtle for me.

"Show me unbiased evidence that shows that conservatives are less informed. The contention that conservatives are less informed will be taken as evidence of an anti-conservative bias."

An excellent parody of conservative anti-logic. Two thumbs up. Up where depends on if you're being serious or not.

An excellent parody of conservative anti-logic. Two thumbs up. Up where depends on if you're being serious or not.

Oh Domici... if only it were in jest...

Why Aren't Liberals Such Sanctimonious A-holes?

They are.

Why is it that conservatives get their panties in a bunch looking for anti-conservative messages that they make up, but you never see the same thing coming from liberals?

Since when?

Both "sides" of that particular scism are sanctimonious asses.

Al Gore
Al Franken
Michael Moore
Anyone on Air America
Cindy Sheehan
Hillary Clinton
Barbra Striestand

need I go on?

Yes, you need to go on and support your argument that any one of these people constitutes the "Rush Limbaugh of the Left".

Al Gore
Al Franken
Michael Moore
Anyone on Air America
Cindy Sheehan
Hillary Clinton
Barbra Striestand

need I go on?

only al franken qualifies on that list. he IS on air america.

my point was not that they dont exist but that they get small audiences and little publicity. no sense repeating myself for the rest of my point

They are.



Since when?

Both "sides" of that particular scism are sanctimonious asses.

Source.

With vitrolic conservative movie reviews like this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20515), and this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18596), coming out with only the flimsiest of pretexts, why is there such a dearth of the liberal equivalent.

I was watching "the Island" for the first time last night (because it was on cable) and I realized that it was based on the public uneasiness over theraputic cloning. There's nothing new about this, all good sci-fi bases it's movies on things that people in the real world are bothered by. Even the original Superman was based on the writer's attitudes regarding opposition to the New Deal (well, not the original original. he was a villain).

But what I'm wondering is why aren't there so many liberal reviewers complaining about conservative propaganda in movies when it's right there to see. This isn't the only example. It's been going back to 50's movies like The Blob and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Hulk and Godsend were both anti-cloning and anti stemcell movies in the last 5 years. But no backlash from the liberals who supposedly control the media.

And I'm not even going to bother with the Conservative uproar over all the animated Disney movies (every fucking time!).

Why is it that conservatives get their panties in a bunch looking for anti-conservative messages that they make up, but you never see the same thing coming from liberals?

This post's premise appears to be that unlike conservatives liberals do not attack based upon politics when critiquing. Liberals are not sanctimonious assholes who find it apropriate to attack others due to differing viewpoints nor do they "get their panties in a bunch". So are you not a liberal or is your post the exception that proves the rule of liberal tolerance and goodwill during critiques?

Me, I'm a centrist pretty much free to piss on both sides. I take from what aspects of all sides I like, I criticise or ridicule the rest. Make up your mind where you stand. You can't really complain about liberals and then say, hey, not fair, they get to have all the cool intellectual stuff.
You're not so much a centrist as you're a pragmatist. Being centrist sort of assumes that there's always a middle ground and that the middle ground will generally be the best option. A pragmatist just looks for solutions and leaves ideologies at church.

This post's premise appears to be that unlike conservatives liberals do not attack based upon politics when critiquing. Liberals are not sanctimonious assholes who find it apropriate to attack others due to differing viewpoints nor do they "get their panties in a bunch". So are you not a liberal or is your post the exception that proves the rule of liberal tolerance and goodwill during critiques?

oh now tell the truth!

liberals get their panties in a bunch on a regular basis.

The left does not do the same thing. The only restriction that the left-wing moral code imposes is "stop treating people like shit."
If it isn't because of the Left that I'm paying Social Security and welfare taxes, then where did they come from? I suppose that magical pixies just invaded the US Congress one day and scribbled down legislation while the various Left Wingers were out not "treating people like shit."

The right is all about pointing out people that they think deserve to be treated like shit.
No, both of them are about controlling your fellow man and trying to guilt trip everyone around you into giving you more control. Whether the man with the gun to my head wants my wallet for Jesus the Christ of Nazareth or Jesus the Homeless Guy of New York is really irrelevant.

I do think it does... dont point out specifics... because every time a moajority in both houses and presidency belonged to conservitives, everything gets fucked up.
It does, dont say it doesnt.
And recently, I believe that liberal views are the best (I used to be conservative until about a week ago)
Numbers dont lie. (Look at the polls. And dont argue that it's because of a liberally owned media, its not. Hell, the conservatives own the media, isnt it obvious?) ---> Some asshole is going to ask me to explain why it's obvious. I dont care. Ill never visit this topic again, so its useless.

I do think it does... dont point out specifics... because every time a moajority in both houses and presidency belonged to conservitives, everything gets fucked up.

The same is true with liberals...remember Carter and Jonhson? We had two Democratic congresses and Presidents that ran the country in to the ground fiscally, militarily, strategically and economically with their policies. The Democrats did the same thing in 1993, costing them Congress with their mismanagement; it was only after the Democrats lost power in Congress that Clinton's approval ratings began to climb and his more moderate policies became reality.

Now the Republicans are doing the same with their total control of the government...they're destroying our fiscal future and overstretching our military while simultaneously doing nothing to advance the successful goals of free trade, fiscal moderation, and civil rights that were priorities of the Clinton Administration. One party control of any place is bad...just look at Detroit or Nassau County, NY for examples of liberal and conservative dominance runing their respective areas.

A mixed government is always the best.

only al franken qualifies on that list. he IS on air america.

my point was not that they dont exist but that they get small audiences and little publicity. no sense repeating myself for the rest of my point


But Al Franken isn't the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh in any sense other than that he's a liberal.

Al Franken can devote a section of each show to quoting Rush Limbaugh and pointing out how he's lying. Rush Limbaugh can't do that.

To be "the Rush Limbaugh of the Left," someone would have to be a lying hypocrite. To demonstrate that Al Franken fits the bill you have to show him lying and doing what he says people should not do.

This post's premise appears to be that unlike conservatives liberals do not attack based upon politics when critiquing. Liberals are not sanctimonious assholes who find it apropriate to attack others due to differing viewpoints nor do they "get their panties in a bunch". So are you not a liberal or is your post the exception that proves the rule of liberal tolerance and goodwill during critiques?

No. This posts premise is that conservatives try to turn non-issues into bullshit issues.

Like when George Bush tried to portray John Kerry as somehow non-American or snobbish by saying that "John Kerry had swiss cheese on his philly cheesesteak, but I had mine 'wiz wit."

This was not only bullshit, it was also a lie, because the guy who made GWB's cheesesteak said that it had no cheese at all.

Your post is bullshit because you're trying to say that it's somehow wrong to criticize conservatives for being full of bullshit because then as a liberal I'm also engaging in criticism.

They are less informed. The statistics have been compiled. The 70% of the people who thought that Saddam was behind 9/11 were not liberals.

The people who think that raising minimum wage hurts the economy are not liberals.

The "Swift Boat Vetrans" and those who believed them (and believe them still) were not liberals.

The people who think that the death penalty deters murderers are not liberals.

The people who think that Clinton made it easier to get welfare are not liberals.

The people who think that we have a real, declared war "on terror," that justifies limiting civil liberties are not liberals.

The people who think that the ACLU supports NAMBLA and wants to outlaw religion are not liberals.

The people who think that marijuana is a gateway drug that's more dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol are not liberals.

The people who think that marijuana has no medical uses are not liberals.

The people who think that people are not equal, but all "scientific" studies are, are not liberals.

The jury is in. Conservatives are less informed. That's why they have "con" right in their name.


Source?

If it isn't because of the Left that I'm paying Social Security and welfare taxes, then where did they come from? I suppose that magical pixies just invaded the US Congress one day and scribbled down legislation while the various Left Wingers were out not "treating people like shit."

I said that the moral restriction of the left is "don't treat people like shit." Allowing people in the richest country in the world to wallow in poverty because of age or misfortune is treating them like shit.

Conservatives like to argue that Christian Charities should fill that bill. But setting aside the fact that they tend to be full of corruption and are beyond public oversight, there's also the fact that 40 years of social security did more to correct the problem of poverty than the last 1,000 years of christian charity.


No, both of them are about controlling your fellow man and trying to guilt trip everyone around you into giving you more control. Whether the man with the gun to my head wants my wallet for Jesus the Christ of Nazareth or Jesus the Homeless Guy of New York is really irrelevant.

The thing is, liberal agendas make the world a better place. Conservatives try to promote fear and intolerance so that they have a platform to run on. Homophobia, anti-immigrant policies, and trying to equate social security with fake wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people are a world away from liberal politics, both in methods and goals.

oh now tell the truth!

liberals get their panties in a bunch on a regular basis.


But the difference is what they get their panties in a bunch about.

Do you really think that there's equivalence in getting upset about hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, economic destruction of our own country, promotion of intolerance of alternative religions and sexual orientations, on one hand, and getting upset about gay people getting married and nipples on television on the other?

Lawl, reading this thread proves that liberals are sanctimonious a-holes.

Lawl, reading this thread proves that liberals are sanctimonious a-holes.

How so?

With vitrolic conservative movie reviews like this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20515), and this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18596), coming out with only the flimsiest of pretexts, why is there such a dearth of the liberal equivalent.

I was watching "the Island" for the first time last night (because it was on cable) and I realized that it was based on the public uneasiness over theraputic cloning. There's nothing new about this, all good sci-fi bases it's movies on things that people in the real world are bothered by. Even the original Superman was based on the writer's attitudes regarding opposition to the New Deal (well, not the original original. he was a villain).

But what I'm wondering is why aren't there so many liberal reviewers complaining about conservative propaganda in movies when it's right there to see. This isn't the only example. It's been going back to 50's movies like The Blob and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Hulk and Godsend were both anti-cloning and anti stemcell movies in the last 5 years. But no backlash from the liberals who supposedly control the media.

And I'm not even going to bother with the Conservative uproar over all the animated Disney movies (every fucking time!).

Why is it that conservatives get their panties in a bunch looking for anti-conservative messages that they make up, but you never see the same thing coming from liberals?

Wow, 1 magazine. Thats really all the conservatives isn't it :rolleyes:

American Patriotism =/= conservatism.

Because liberals tend to be more informed and accepting, while conservatives want to keep things the way they were in the past. It's in the very meaning of the words.

I've seen people be banned for saying that exact same thing about liberals.

Source?


I am not going to source information on the above, which are ubiquitous, anymore than I would source a claim that conservatives favor the Iraq war than liberals.

If you haven't seen any of this then do your homework. The fact that you haven't even heard this just goes to show that you are uninformed.

Wow, 1 magazine. Thats really all the conservatives isn't it :rolleyes:

American Patriotism =/= conservatism.

1 magazine was an easy compilation. I can only bring myself to cite so many sources.

If you want more you can also go to movieguide.org, the Free Republic, or even the New Republic.

I really hate how conservatives use their own ignorance as a shield. "If you can't cram information down my throat then I'm justified in pretending that it isn't true."

Also, I didn't say that it was all of the conservatives. I said it's practically none of the liberals.

I am not going to source information on the above, which are ubiquitous anymore than I would source a claim that conservatives favor the Iraq war than liberals.

If you haven't seen any of this then do your homework. The fact that you haven't even heard this just goes to show that you are uninformed.

Eh well sorry if I feel like you need to back up what you say. Don't want you to put your foot in your mouth.

1 magazine was an easy compilation. I can only bring myself to cite so many sources.

If you want more you can also go to movieguide.org, the Free Republic, or even the New Republic.

I really hate how conservatives use their own ignorance as a shield. "If you can't cram information down my throat then I'm justified in pretending that it isn't true."

Thats not conservatism, thats just dumb people using conservatism as an excuse.

(although i am not sure, isn't being a conservative in american different to being one in england?)

Conservative and liberal have become meaningless these days. Nobody can agree on what they mean, or who is actually a liberal or a conservative really.

I suggest dropping them, and defining individuals based solely upon their own idosyncratic deficiencies.

Agreed.

I've seen people be banned for saying that exact same thing about liberals.
I very much doubt it.

Here is the way I see the Conservative vs. Liberal in the political landscape of America. When I look at this, I am reminded of the story about teaching a man to fish. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a life time. The liberals in the United States basically want to use governmet to help feed people, and to take care of them, basically creating a weak socialist state. The Conservative crowd wants to go the other way, with smaller government, and teaching the people to feed for themselves. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation. Both side are trying to "feed the people" but they both have diffrent ways of doing it.

How so?

Well the fact that the consensus on this thread that *all* conservatives are ignorant boobs would give it away.

I said that the moral restriction of the left is "don't treat people like shit." Allowing people in the richest country in the world to wallow in poverty because of age or misfortune is treating them like shit.
And a conservative would say that allowing people in the richest country in the world to be wallow in soul-crushing immorality is treating them like shit. The only reason you view the one as good and the other as opporessive is because of your own particular biases.
Conservatives like to argue that Christian Charities should fill that bill. But setting aside the fact that they tend to be full of corruption and are beyond public oversight,
And government is just a bastion of ethics, honesty and wonderment. The fact is, if you don't like the way a charity does business, you can just choose to ignore it and not support it, if you don't like the way your government does business, you're pretty much fucked.
And don't give me that bulllshit about voting, the fact is that it only takes one populist to render my "oversight" of the government irrelevant.
there's also the fact that 40 years of social security did more to correct the problem of poverty than the last 1,000 years of christian charity.
Really, so that must mean that poverty is extinguished now? I guess we don't need those programs at all.
You can't "fix" poverty. Its always there, like disease and death, a constant that has existed as long as human society.
The thing is, liberal agendas make the world a better place.
No, scientific advances make the world a better place, human achievement makes the world a better place. "Agendas" range from "no change" to "worse."
Conservatives try to promote fear and intolerance so that they have a platform to run on.
As opposed to the tolerance you're now showing to Conservative thought? Every time the Right Wing makes a play, the Left Wing responds with shrill screams of terror at the idea that their social programming might be "halted" (aka "reformed").
Homophobia, anti-immigrant policies, and trying to equate social security with fake wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people are a world away from liberal politics, both in methods and goals.
No, both groups have their idea of what makes a "perfect" society, and both are trying to implement that society on the rest of the world. Leftist propaganda is no more legitimate than that of the Right.

Here is the way I see the Conservative vs. Liberal in the political landscape of America. When I look at this, I am reminded of the story about teaching a man to fish. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a life time. The liberals in the United States basically want to use governmet to help feed people, and to take care of them, basically creating a weak socialist state. The Conservative crowd wants to go the other way, with smaller government, and teaching the people to feed for themselves. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation. Both side are trying to "feed the people" but they both have diffrent ways of doing it.

I suppose thats why it was conservatives that brought about the introduction of public schools...oh wait.....

I suppose thats why it was conservatives that brought about the introduction of public schools...oh wait.....

The teaching people to fish part was a metaphor. :headbang:

The teaching people to fish part was a metaphor. :headbang:

Yes a woefuly inaccurate one. Its more liberals do as you say and the conservativis tell him to go bother some one else,ie relly on donations from charity.

Yes a woefuly inaccurate one. Its more liberals due as you say and the conservativis tell him to go bother some one else,ie relly on donations from charity.

Yes, Conservative are mean asshole who don't care about the poor. :rolleyes: Hey whatever helps you sleep at night bud.

I suppose thats why it was conservatives that brought about the introduction of public schools...oh wait.....
*Completely misses the point*
Are they teaching fishing in public schools these days? How odd . . .

*Back on the point, sort of*
Of course, the mandatory attendence policies and vehement opposition to any and all alternatives to going to your local government school is all part of that leftist tolerance I keep hearing about, right Domici?

Ok, for those of you who say that Conservative are less inform, prove it. Show me sources (unbiased) in which proves it. CNN does not count.
So who is it that still thought the Saddam had WMD and links to al-Qaeda two years after the invasion. Liberals, perhaps?

No, both of them are about controlling your fellow man and trying to guilt trip everyone around you into giving you more control. Whether the man with the gun to my head wants my wallet for Jesus the Christ of Nazareth or Jesus the Homeless Guy of New York is really irrelevant.
Just because the Chinese and NKs tell their people that America is a police state don't make it so.

I don't think that conservatives want your wallet for Jesus so much as for bombing random countries.

Source?
Good question. I've lately also been wondering if the sky really is blue or the Pope really is Catholic.

Eh well sorry if I feel like you need to back up what you say. Don't want you to put your foot in your mouth.
This is exactly the crap that Domici is talking about. Most of his claims, (except maybe the last two) are ridiculously obvious.

Here is the way I see the Conservative vs. Liberal in the political landscape of America. When I look at this, I am reminded of the story about teaching a man to fish. If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a life time. The liberals in the United States basically want to use governmet to help feed people, and to take care of them, basically creating a weak socialist state. The Conservative crowd wants to go the other way, with smaller government, and teaching the people to feed for themselves. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation. Both side are trying to "feed the people" but they both have diffrent ways of doing it.
Do you really think this? Do you actually think that liberals want everyone on welfare? Do you actually think that conservatives care about teaching people to help themselves? It's the liberals that want peope to help themselves.

If what you were saying wasn't pure lies, then the unemployment rate in America, when liberals ruled, would have been 80%+. But it wasn't.

Well the fact that the consensus on this thread that *all* conservatives are ignorant boobs would give it away.
I don't think that, not even Domici probably thinks that. There are plenty of conservative styled intellectuals. He's talking abuot the average Republican voters vs. average Democrat/Libertarian voters.

ive asked myself the same thing.

where are the rush limbaugh of the left?

Oh, they exist. They aren't as basely rude and offensive as Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, but they're as radical and unreasonable. Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan, for example.

Yes, Conservative are mean asshole who don't care about the poor. :rolleyes: Hey whatever helps you sleep at night bud.

Hey I just call them as I see 'em. And it sure doesn't look like they are doing shit to help anyone that isn't already rich enough to take care of themselves... and a private yacht.

I don't think that, not even Domi probably thinks that. There are plenty of conservative styled intellectuals. He's talking abuot the average Republican voters vs. average Democrat/Libertarian voters.

HAHA, I love how you group Democrats and Libertarians together. LOVE IT.

Just because the Chinese and NKs tell their people that America is a police state don't make it so.
You try going a year without paying your taxes, then you can talk to all the nice IRS about what the US government is and isn't willing to do to get your cooperation.
I don't think that conservatives want your wallet for Jesus so much as for bombing random countries.
In reality, Conservatives for the same reason that Liberals want my wallet: simply to have it and to have the power to disperse the beer money locked away therein to their friends.

Hey I just call them as I see 'em. And it sure doesn't look like they are doing shit to help anyone that isn't already rich enough to take care of themselves... and a private yacht.

Uh huh... yea, tell me, do you work? Did you work in 2001? Did you get a tax refund in 2001? So did I, but I'm not rich, so dammit those Conservative made a mistake! I'm not rich and yet they gave me $300! Why I am going to the nearest Republican office to return this money so some rich guy can have it. They're not susspose to help me if I'm not rich. :rolleyes:

Uh huh... yea, tell me, do you work? Did you work in 2001? Did you get a tax refund in 2001? So did I, but I'm not rich, so dammit those Conservative made a mistake! I'm not rich and yet they gave me $300! Why I am going to the nearest Republican office to return this money so some rich guy can have it. They're not susspose to help me if I'm not rich. :rolleyes:
I was refering more to their willingness to engage in corporate wellfair, while decrying any other form. But, those tax breaks were great, with roughly 60% of the loot going to the top 30% in the country it obviously helped the lower class more than it did the upper.

I think that anybody would be hard pressed to find a reliable source showing that there is any great difference in intelligence between liberal and conservative voters. I'd say this is because there is no significant difference and, even if there were, it would be hard to document.
It's what people like to do -- paint the opposition as inferior so that they can feel secure about their own beliefs. To many liberals in the US, conservatives are a bunch of undeducated, redneck gun lovers. Whereas, to many conservatives, liberals are a bunch of tree hugging, pot smoking hippies.

Here is a link showing the 2004 election by many different categories. Pasted below is who voted for who by education level. Bush's number is on top; Kerry's is on the bottom. Kerry won the most voters among the highest (post grad) and lowest (no high school) educated people, and Bush won all the education levels in between. There's nothing here to indicate any great difference between the education level of people who voted for Bush (most of whom are probably more conservative) and people who voted for Kerry (most of whom probably lean more liberal).


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY EDUCATION

BUSH KERRY NADER

No High School (4%)
49%
+10
50% 0%
H.S. Graduate (22%)
52%
+3
47% 0%
Some College (32%)
54%
+3
46% 0%
College Graduate (26%)
52%
+1
46% 1%
Postgrad Study (16%)
44%
+0
55% 1%

I think that anybody would be hard pressed to find a reliable source showing that there is any great difference in intelligence between liberal and conservative voters. I'd say, this is because there is no significant difference and, even if there were, it would be hard to document.
It's what people like to do -- paint the opposition as inferior so that they can feel better about their own beliefs. To many liberals in the US, conservatives are a bunch of undeducated, redneck gun lovers. Whereas, to many conservatives, liberals are a bunch of tree hugging, pot smoking hippies.

Here's a link showing the 2004 election by many different categories. Pasted below is who voted for who by education level. Bush's number is on top, Kerry's is on the bottom. Kerry won the most voters at the highest (post doctorate) and lowest (no high school) education level, and Bush won all the education levels in between. There's nothing here to indicate any great difference between the education level of people who voted for Bush (most of whom are probably more conservative) and people who voted for Kerry (most of whom probably lean more liberal).


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY EDUCATION

BUSH KERRY NADER

No High School (4%)
49%
+10
50% 0%
H.S. Graduate (22%)
52%
+3
47% 0%
Some College (32%)
54%
+3
46% 0%
College Graduate (26%)
52%
+1
46% 1%
Postgrad Study (16%)
44%
+0
55% 1%


*appaulse* you sumed it up perfectly!

You try going a year without paying your taxes, then you can talk to all the nice IRS about what the US government is and isn't willing to do to get your cooperation.
This isn't an explanation about the US being a police state. My country (Ireland) has higher taxes than the US and it's not a police state.

In reality, Conservatives for the same reason that Liberals want my wallet: simply to have it and to have the power to disperse the beer money locked away therein to their friends.
Wilful ignorance, much?

Both sides are corrupt, but amid that some progress has been made, YES!, using tax money.

HAHA, I love how you group Democrats and Libertarians together. LOVE IT.

In terms of actual policies the Dems and Reps are pretty similar but the average liberal seems to be ideologically closer to a libertarian than a republican.

In terms of actual policies the Dems and Reps are pretty similar but the average liberal seems to be ideologically closer to a libertarian than a republican.

Um no...you cannot group Democrats and Libertarians together. Just because Democrats want to significantly reduce defense spending and "corporate welfare" does NOT make them Libertarians by any means. In two-party races, Libertarians will vote for Republicans much much much more often than Democrats.

Primarily because conservatives tend to me more suspiscious, and find the 'liberal agenda' everywhere they look, whilst liberals only see it in politics. Except for militant feminists and environmentalists.

In terms of actual policies the Dems and Reps are pretty similar but the average liberal seems to be ideologically closer to a libertarian than a republican.

In the US, hell no. Many liberals think it is their duty to tell you what you can and can't do just as much as conservatives; the only difference is where they hit. Their restrictions on freedom hit you in the pocketbook while conservatives' restrictions hit you in your personal life.

Both extremes are incredibly dangerous if they have too much power. The closest thing to a libertarian in the US is a libertarian.

This isn't an explanation about the US being a police state. My country (Ireland) has higher taxes than the US and it's not a police state.
You only say that because you've grown accustomed to hauling out your check book once a year and financing whatever ridiculous schemes your government has come up with since the last time you paid up.
I don't have to be living in a police state to have the threat of government violence being held against me.
Wilful ignorance, much?
Naive, much? (Can one be willfully naive?)
Both sides are corrupt, but amid that some progress has been made, YES!, using tax money.
Humans have been making progress for years, with, without and in spite of government. The only thing that government control is effective at creating is more government control.

In the US, hell no. Many liberals think it is their duty to tell you what you can and can't do just as much as conservatives; the only difference is where they hit. Their restrictions on freedom hit you in the pocketbook while conservatives' restrictions hit you in your personal life.

That's right! Those damn liberals, trying to take away my right to purchase what I want.

Just recently, they were trying to take away people's freedom to buy pornography. Oh, wait - that's the conservatives.

Right, that's it! They were trying to maintain the abolition of the freedom to buy marijuana. Oops, that was the conservatives, too.

Yes, I have it! They want to restrict the purchase of violent video games, those closet authoritarians! Oh, sorry; that was the conservatives yet again.

I get it now - they don't see property earned on the capitalist free market as an inalienable right independent of its actual general utility. How repressive.

In the US, hell no. Many liberals think it is their duty to tell you what you can and can't do just as much as conservatives; the only difference is where they hit. Their restrictions on freedom hit you in the pocketbook while conservatives' restrictions hit you in your personal life.

Oh please boy we all know that there's so little difference between the parties in America. Democrats restrict personal freedom and Reps restict economic freedom plenty no matter what the media image says.

You only say that because you've grown accustomed to hauling out your check book once a year and financing whatever ridiculous schemes your government has come up with since the last time you paid up.
If I thought that schemes like the universal education, public transport and roads (all of which I benefit from) were ridiculous I would vote against them.

Getting taxed can be annoynig but it's usually used for a good reason.

I don't have to be living in a police state to have the threat of government violence being held against me.
No, you just have to live in a country with laws. Which is terrible, apparently.

Humans have been making progress for years, with, without and in spite of government. The only thing that government control is effective at creating is more government control.
You're not selling me this. I know what life was like in the laissez faire era and I don't think that it was as good as it is today.

It's no coincidence that the west is more prosperous today than ever before. It's because most of the 20th century involved government implementation of a mixed economy.

Pure capitalism (and pure socialism) are crap. And I say that with good reason.

Eh well sorry if I feel like you need to back up what you say. Don't want you to put your foot in your mouth.

So you'll be supporting your asertion that:

Al Gore
Al Franken
Michael Moore
Anyone on Air America
Cindy Sheehan
Hillary Clinton
Barbra Striestand

can all be labeled the "Rush Limbaugh of the Left" any moment now, right?





Right?

That's right! Those damn liberals, trying to take away my right to purchase what I want.

Just recently, they were trying to take away people's freedom to buy pornography. Oh, wait - that's the conservatives.

Right, that's it! They were trying to maintain the abolition of the freedom to buy marijuana. Oops, that was the conservatives, too.

Yes, I have it! They want to restrict the purchase of violent video games, those closet authoritarians! Oh, sorry; that was the conservatives yet again.

I get it now - they don't see property earned on the capitalist free market as an inalienable right independent of its actual general utility. How repressive.

HAHAHAHA. First off, marijuana usage is NOT a right. Smoking weed is not a "freedom", moron. I support the legalization of marijuana as I am a user, but to declare conservatives as "maintaining the abolition (sic) of the freedom" is just straight out retarded, especially when there is no serious legislation from liberals to legalize it on a federal level.

Second, the legislation on the federal level to restrict the purchase of violent video games was led by none other than...Hillary Clinton. Whoops, your bad.

Oh, and yea, gotta love these freedom loving liberals when it comes to gun rights and the freedom for businesses to choose whether or not they want to cater to smokers or not. Oh yea, good luck getting foie gras in Chicago.

Liberals are just as authoritative. Period.

HAHAHAHA. First off, marijuana usage is NOT a right. Smoking weed is not a "freedom", moron.

Persuit of happiness. It's one of our inalienable rights.

Persuit of happiness. It's one of our inalienable rights.

That's in the Declaration of Independence, not a legislative document.

yet the right still complains about the "liberal" media, despite having their own private news network(hint: starts with an "F" ends with "ox News")

Mozilla has a TV network now? Wow...wonder what they're gonna talk about....

HAHAHAHA. First off, marijuana usage is NOT a right.
How do you define a right? By the law of the status quo?

So you'll be supporting your asetion that:

Al Gore
Al Franken
Michael Moore
Anyone on Air America
Cindy Sheehan
Hillary Clinton
Barbra Striestand

can all be labeled the "Rush Limbaugh of the Left" any moment now, right?

Sure why not.

Al Gore is a Rush on the left because he preaches Global concerns, and Global warming etc. However, his lifestyle says otherwise. I covered this in a thread a while back. He has multiple manson in which run off of power other than wind or solar, he flies his own personal jet, and he pays other companies to pollute less instead of doing it himself. His actual conservation activity probably begins and end at recycling his trash.

Al Franken is a Rush Limbaugh on the left because of the way he tals, he talks trash, make rude jokes, etc. He marks it as humor, but really, I'm having a hard tim finding him funny.

Michael Moore is one of those people who loves to twist facts to make his opposition look evil. He's been known to take things out of context, link two group together to make one of them look evilier (like linking the KKK to the NRA, I mean comon) and even though he says he is pro-union, and for the little guy. Most of his films are made in Canada, I guess he wants to avoid those union and labor laws here in the USA.

Well, Air America just annoys me, got nothing there.

Cindy Sheehan is well, don't really know how to describe her other than wow. She's mad at Bush for sending her son over to Iraq, and yet she fails to reallize that we have an all-volunteer army, he volunteered to go over there. She's also a big media whore, what with the camera following her around all the time, etc. I have a weak case against her, but eh, still felt like listing her.

If Rush Limbaughs of the left have a hiarchy system, Hillary Clinton would be the queen. Not only is she power hungry, she also likes to say one thing and do another. She hates the oil industry, yet she has stocks in oil. She says that children should have more freedom, and yet when Chelsea was growing up, she was restrictive. She supports public schools, Chelsea went to a private school. Also, look up White Water sometimes.

Well, you got me on Barbra, I just hate her, she sucks as an actress.

How do you define a right? By the law of the status quo?

No, a right in the United States is something granted by the Constitution. Nowhere does it state that smoking weed is a right. That means it's fair game to the whim of lawmakers. You cannot say that smoking weed is a "freedom". That would be like saying that armed robbery is a "freedom".

No, a right in the United States is something granted by the Constitution.
Americans have dozens of freedoms that aren't in the Constitution. The right to snoke cigarretes isn't there either.

HAHAHAHA. First off, marijuana usage is NOT a right. Smoking weed is not a "freedom", moron.

It most definitely is, being a victimless crime. The state lacks the right to regulate such personal decisions.

I do not appreciate you calling me a "moron", but I understand that sometimes it is difficult to express effective arguments, and that this frustration can be expressed in insults. Next time, before you reply to one of my posts, please calm down, and perhaps you will be able to express yourself without insulting your opponent.

I support the legalization of marijuana as I am a user, but to declare conservatives as "maintaining the abolition (sic) of the freedom" is just straight out retarded,

Because you say so?

especially when there is no serious legislation from liberals to legalize it on a federal level.

Yes, because the "liberals" on the federal level are a bunch of opportunistic cowards. So?

Talk to a dozen liberals and a dozen conservatives and tell me which group supports less regulation of recreational drugs.

Second, the legislation on the federal level to restrict the purchase of violent video games was led by none other than...Hillary Clinton. Whoops, your bad.

I am not exactly a fan of Hillary Clinton. Nor is she an archetypical liberal, whatever Republican propagandists seek to paint her as.

Oh, and yea, gotta love these freedom loving liberals when it comes to gun rights

There I'll admit an unfortunate lack. Shame Vetalia didn't mention it; if he had, I would have expressed my agreement.

and the freedom for businesses to choose whether or not they want to cater to smokers or not.

Disputable whether this qualifies as a "freedom"; consumers and workers may disagree on whether the decision, which after all affects them quite considerably, should be in the hands of business owners.

Oh yea, good luck getting foie gras in Chicago.

The justification, which I happen not to agree with, does not have its basis in restricting freedom but rather in advancing the welfare of animals. To suggest that it represses freedom begs the question in your own favor; it ignores the issue of animal welfare, which of course is that which is in dispute.

Liberals are just as authoritative. Period.

I doubt it.

No, a right in the United States is something granted by the Constitution.

A legal right. Some people, including me, hold that there are rights independent of whether or not the law respects them.

Americans have dozens of freedoms that aren't in the Constitution. The right to snoke cigarretes isn't there either.

I think the rights that are not covered in the Bill of Rights or Consitution is talked about either in Admendment 9 or 10.

I do think it does... dont point out specifics... because every time a moajority in both houses and presidency belonged to conservitives, everything gets fucked up.
It does, dont say it doesnt.

Oh really? "Liberal" presidents and congresses never screw up?

To draw one glaring example, please explain how LBJ, the liberal Democrat didn't fuck up Vietnam.

To draw another, please explain how conservative Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower screwed everything up so badly.

(For bonus points, please explain how George W. Bush is a liberal president, who has fucked up badly. Because he sure isn't a consevative! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml))

I think the rights that are not covered in the Bill of Rights or Consitution is talked about either in Admendment 9 or 10.

Both.

Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

No. This posts premise is that conservatives try to turn non-issues into bullshit issues.

Like when George Bush tried to portray John Kerry as somehow non-American or snobbish by saying that "John Kerry had swiss cheese on his philly cheesesteak, but I had mine 'wiz wit."

This was not only bullshit, it was also a lie, because the guy who made GWB's cheesesteak said that it had no cheese at all.

Your post is bullshit because you're trying to say that it's somehow wrong to criticize conservatives for being full of bullshit because then as a liberal I'm also engaging in criticism.

So let me get this right. When George Bush says things about Kerry's cheesesteak it is bullshit and a non issue. But when you bring up Bush's cheesesteak it is a BIG DEAL issue and worth your hystrionics over the issue.

Now I get it. When conservatives are howling idiots it is bad, but when you have a howling hissy fit about it it is fair criticism. Your premise is not only false but your technique in showing it is as hypocritical and biased and as afflicted with tunnel vision as any I have ever read. Do liberals a favor and relabel yourself as "independent thinker" or something else that wont tend associate them with your tactics

Just recently, they were trying to take away people's freedom to buy pornography. Oh, wait - that's the conservatives.

Err... Are you totaly unfamiliar with the anti-porn left that opposes pornoggraphy as the "exploitation of women"? Look up Andrea Dworkin sometime.

Right, that's it! They were trying to maintain the abolition of the freedom to buy marijuana. Oops, that was the conservatives, too.

That would be why that great conservative president Frankllin Roosevelt was the one who signed the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, leading to the criminalization of cannabis.

Yes, I have it! They want to restrict the purchase of violent video games, those closet authoritarians! Oh, sorry; that was the conservatives yet again.

I'm looking for a good source now, but I know there are lefty anti-gamers as well.

I said biased because that post was biased.

Because, like everyone knows, reality has a strong left-wing bias.

I think the rights that are not covered in the Bill of Rights or Consitution is talked about either in Admendment 9 or 10.
Yes, which is why it's completely wrong to claim that something isn't a right even if not specifically mentioned.

Liberals aren't as willing to accept what someone else tells them as Gospel, so we don't deify our side's nutjobs like conservatives do.

If by that, you mean we dont tend to take every word people like Micheal Moore tell us at face value, then I would say your mostly right.

However, fewer Liberals listen to guys like Moore, or those to the far, far left.

However, Conservatives seem to adhere to the words of fools like O' Reilly, or Coulter, or even Michael Savage (whos real last name is Weiner).
It seems more conservatives tend to parrot the words of these fools much moreso than Liberals do.

That would be why that great conservative president Frankllin Roosevelt was the one who signed the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, leading to the criminalization of cannabis.


Actually, that had a lot to do with the desire to deport a lot of immagrant mexicans, as well.

Funny how the "stamp act" never had any actual stamps produced.
With one, you could legally possess the stuff....

ive asked myself the same thing.

where are the rush limbaugh of the left?

i think that the rightwingnutjobs of radio, tv, and newspaper editorials are so over the top that righties love them and lefties cant keep from tuning in. whereas the leftwingnutjobs are so annoying to their leftie constituency that its hard to tune in to them even when you agree most of the time. the people on airamerica for example (is air america still going? i could never get the "local" station on a consistent basis) say things as outrageous as the rightist radio guys do but it just pisses ME off when they say it. i cant be like the rigthtist audience and buy every stupid over-the-top comment made by a radio personality.

so the lefties dont get the audience or the publicity that the righties get.

You actually hit the nail there.... The RL of the world take positions which are unforgivingly extreme. And they don't appologize for it. There is plenty
of Liberal personalities like that. You just can't see through them. The differenece is that the liberal extremism is not lack of heart -- it is lack of brains (or as you called it "stupidity"). The stupider an opinion or a news show is the more likely it is to be liberal. They are against analyzing anything -- because analysis can only be done from a certain perspective (yeah, right). It's all about "who does this situatoin makes feel bad?" Or "who's the victim?" Whenever you see the week glamorized for their weekness and the strong demonized for their strength without any regard to
right and wrong (we can all agree that murder is wrong -- even if the murderer is poor and had a bad childhood) you are seeing liberal extremism.
the victim

Sure why not.

Al Gore is a Rush on the left because he preaches Global concerns, and Global warming etc. However, his lifestyle says otherwise. I covered this in a thread a while back. He has multiple manson in which run off of power other than wind or solar, he flies his own personal jet, and he pays other companies to pollute less instead of doing it himself. His actual conservation activity probably begins and end at recycling his trash.

Al Franken is a Rush Limbaugh on the left because of the way he tals, he talks trash, make rude jokes, etc. He marks it as humor, but really, I'm having a hard tim finding him funny.

Michael Moore is one of those people who loves to twist facts to make his opposition look evil. He's been known to take things out of context, link two group together to make one of them look evilier (like linking the KKK to the NRA, I mean comon) and even though he says he is pro-union, and for the little guy. Most of his films are made in Canada, I guess he wants to avoid those union and labor laws here in the USA.

Well, Air America just annoys me, got nothing there.

Cindy Sheehan is well, don't really know how to describe her other than wow. She's mad at Bush for sending her son over to Iraq, and yet she fails to reallize that we have an all-volunteer army, he volunteered to go over there. She's also a big media whore, what with the camera following her around all the time, etc. I have a weak case against her, but eh, still felt like listing her.

If Rush Limbaughs of the left have a hiarchy system, Hillary Clinton would be the queen. Not only is she power hungry, she also likes to say one thing and do another. She hates the oil industry, yet she has stocks in oil. She says that children should have more freedom, and yet when Chelsea was growing up, she was restrictive. She supports public schools, Chelsea went to a private school. Also, look up White Water sometimes.

Well, you got me on Barbra, I just hate her, she sucks as an actress.

Have to take issue with the Al Gore example there. He is very wealthy. So he pays people to do a lot of his stuff. So? That's how you make use of your money. That doesn't make you liberal or conservative. It make you normal. He is, however, a policy ace. His long term strategy was investing in education and scientific research. He did not invent TCP/IP but he did invent a way to make internet a popular tool. If he didn't scream from every corner about information superhighway, computers would still be the domain of the asocial. He does see the goal of the government as effecting the future (both parties do that, btw). And, as such, he wants the governtment that can bring about progress rather than distruction. Before you start throwing labels, I am veeery connservative. I am for completely abolishing labor unions, keeping the the guns, protecting the environment, subsidizing education, subsidizing scientific research, keeping religion a private matter and regarding the unborn as unborn -- not as humans (the whole argument that they will become humans if you wait a little is as valid as the argument that they will die if you wait a little).

With vitrolic conservative movie reviews like this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20515), and this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18596), coming out with only the flimsiest of pretexts, why is there such a dearth of the liberal equivalent.

I was watching "the Island" for the first time last night (because it was on cable) and I realized that it was based on the public uneasiness over theraputic cloning. There's nothing new about this, all good sci-fi bases it's movies on things that people in the real world are bothered by. Even the original Superman was based on the writer's attitudes regarding opposition to the New Deal (well, not the original original. he was a villain).

But what I'm wondering is why aren't there so many liberal reviewers complaining about conservative propaganda in movies when it's right there to see. This isn't the only example. It's been going back to 50's movies like The Blob and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Hulk and Godsend were both anti-cloning and anti stemcell movies in the last 5 years. But no backlash from the liberals who supposedly control the media.

And I'm not even going to bother with the Conservative uproar over all the animated Disney movies (every fucking time!).

Why is it that conservatives get their panties in a bunch looking for anti-conservative messages that they make up, but you never see the same thing coming from liberals?

I can't speak for other "liberals," but I grew up knowing that movies always portray science as the Big Bad. Scientists are either mad, evil, or both. The hero saves the day by realizing that what he really needs is to have faith (in himself, in his cause, in his leader/god/lover) and to ignore all the stupid thinking and facts that have been holding him down.

I never chalked this up to any big conservative conspiracy. I just figured that most people who aren't educated about science are rather scared of it, because science is pretty powerful stuff. And it's also very tough to learn, since it takes years just to cover the intro material to most topics.

So let me get this right. When George Bush says things about Kerry's cheesesteak it is bullshit and a non issue. But when you bring up Bush's cheesesteak it is a BIG DEAL issue and worth your hystrionics over the issue.

Wow!

No. If you seriously believe what you're saying here, your reading comprehension is in dire need of remediation.

What's bullshit is trying to sway public opinion over things like sandwich toppings and lying about it.

I'm not bringing up Bush's cheesesteak per se. I'm bringing up the fact that he's full of bullshit.

Claiming that one is the better candidate based on toppings of a meat sandwich, and lying about the topping you yourself put on your sandwich = bullshit.

Claiming that it's bullshit to do so =/= bullshit.

Claiming that they're equally bullshit =/= bullshit.

You're either too dumb to get that, or you're full of bullshit yourself, because you're missing the point so badly and then trying to base a premise on it.

Now I get it. When conservatives are howling idiots it is bad, but when you have a howling hissy fit about it it is fair criticism. Your premise is not only false but your technique in showing it is as hypocritical and biased and as afflicted with tunnel vision as any I have ever read. Do liberals a favor and relabel yourself as "independent thinker" or something else that wont tend associate them with your tactics

Do yourself a favor and label yourself a "thinker." When they see how you demonstrate your thinking people will understand that you're a conservative because conservatives always call themselves the opposite of what they are.

Take a look at what you just wrote. You are trying to equate being an idiot ("when conservatives are...") with complaining about it. Being an idiot is a bad thing. When the entire ruling party of the nation's government is dominated by it it is something to be complained about.

Complaining about idiocy is not the same thing as demonstrating it. Stop trying to equate the two.

You actually hit the nail there.... The RL of the world take positions which are unforgivingly extreme. And they don't appologize for it. There is plenty
of Liberal personalities like that. You just can't see through them. The differenece is that the liberal extremism is not lack of heart -- it is lack of brains (or as you called it "stupidity"). The stupider an opinion or a news show is the more likely it is to be liberal. They are against analyzing anything -- because analysis can only be done from a certain perspective (yeah, right).

Are you out of your mind? Conservative radio and TV is all about lack of analysis. When Bush was asked if he denounced the Swift Boat ads, and his answer was "I denounce all the 527 groups. I always have" Why did no one challenge him.

Why did noone say "um, when you started your campaign you said that 527 groups were good for democracy. How can you say you've always denounced them?"

Or "Mr. President, we're not asking about the existence of 527 groups, we're asking if you denounce people who are lying about the honorable service of a Vietnam Vet just to get you into office. Do you denounce that?

It's all about "who does this situatoin makes feel bad?" Or "who's the victim?" Whenever you see the week glamorized for their weekness and the strong demonized for their strength without any regard to
right and wrong (we can all agree that murder is wrong -- even if the murderer is poor and had a bad childhood) you are seeing liberal extremism.
the victim

No. You've got it wrong there again. Yes. Liberals believe in justice, but we also believe in analysis.

Conservatives will tell you that with higher minimum wages you get a reduction in employment and higher inflation. Liberals point out that that's not true, but to conservatives it feels true. And that's all that matters to them.

When Bush pushed to invade Iraq people argued that there was no evidence that it would do any good. His response was that he knew it would because of faith.

Where is the intelligence and analysis that says that we should outlaw gay marriage or not allow marijuana to be used as medicine?

There isn't any. Those policies are based on the fact that, to conservatives, they feel wrong.

What you are calling a lack of brains and an abundance of "feeling" is in fact an understanding of justice and the benifits of a government that helps the down trodden.

Yes, to a liberal it feels better to enact policies that result in more money for the poor. To the conservatives it feels better to give money to the rich.

When analysed, it becomes clear that it provides economic benifits to push money to the bottom to stimulate the economy. When rationalized (i.e. one's feelings justified by defense mechanisms when confronted with contrary evidence) conservatives say that more money at the top means more jobs.

But that's contrary to observed fact. But does it matter to conservatives?
No. Why? Because conservatives vote, and legislate, based on feelings.

Oh really? "Liberal" presidents and congresses never screw up?

To draw one glaring example, please explain how LBJ, the liberal Democrat didn't fuck up Vietnam.

When it became clear that Vietnam was a mistake, he acknowledged it and didn't run for reelection. Unlike conservative Bush who screwed everything up and lied about it, coercing the news networks not to run unflattering stories until after the election so that the people wouldn't know how badly he was doing.

To draw another, please explain how conservative Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower screwed everything up so badly.

He was the one who sent military aid to the corrupt nationalist government of Vietnam getting us involved there in the first place. If he hadn't, then Vietnam wouldn't have had to turn to the communists for help in overthrowing them, or the military dictatorship that followed that we also supported.


(For bonus points, please explain how George W. Bush is a liberal president, who has fucked up badly. Because he sure isn't a consevative! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml))

Yes he is. He isn't a paleoconservative, but then again, conservative ideology is dead these days. Even people who identify as conservatives believe in positions that are contrary to most of those of the Republican party. They are almost literally voting for political ghosts.

But as a strictly intellectual exercise... I suppose the fact that all the Republicans up for reelection happen to be treating him like kryptonite now, I suppose that their revulsion for him makes him similar to the word liberal if not actual liberal politics.

No. You've got it wrong there again. Yes. Liberals believe in justice, but we also believe in analysis.

Maybe that's the real problem. It's easy to foam at the mouth and shout, "Gay marriage is wrong because the Bible says so!"

It's much harder to shout, "An extremely large number of peer-reviewed studies have found no statistically significant link between homosexual marriage and any form of abuse or criminality!"

;)


Conservatives will tell you that with higher minimum wages you get a reduction in employment and higher inflation. Liberals point out that that's not true, but to conservatives it feels true. And that's all that matters to them.

Again, there's your problem. Conservatives: "Higher minimum wage will cost jobs and cripple the economy!"

Liberals: "Allow me to explain the complex economic models which describe the effect of minimum wage on our national monies. We'll begin on page one of your Econ 101 textbook..."


When Bush pushed to invade Iraq people argued that there was no evidence that it would do any good. His response was that he knew it would because of faith.

Of course. Because instead of thinking with his head, he knew it with his gut.

"That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."

(Stephen Colbert 4eva)

*Completely misses the point*
Are they teaching fishing in public schools these days? How odd . . .

*Back on the point, sort of*
Of course, the mandatory attendence policies and vehement opposition to any and all alternatives to going to your local government school is all part of that leftist tolerance I keep hearing about, right Domici?

There's no opposition from the left to going to private schools.

They oppose government voucher programs because they simply don't work. The studies have been done. Charter schools don't do any better than public schools, and the standards from private schools (on teachers) is much lower than public schools. The only reason that they keep their gpa's up is because they kick out under-performing kids.

That, and the only reason that conservatives favor voucher programs is because they're trying to suck money out of the public school program.

Part of leftist tolerance is actualy opening up your ears to facts. We tolerate different cultures, faiths, and opinions. We do not tolerate false "facts," and fallacies.

Oh, they exist. They aren't as basely rude and offensive as Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, but they're as radical and unreasonable. Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan, for example.

I wonder about that. Does anyone really know what Sheehan's politics actually are outside of being a mother who blames Bush for the fact that her son died?

I'm not saying that she's wrong, or that I disagree with anything she's said, just that it now occurs to me that she doesn't really have a political message. She is a political message.

Again, there's your problem. Conservatives: "Higher minimum wage will cost jobs and cripple the economy!"

Liberals: "Allow me to explain the complex economic models which describe the effect of minimum wage on our national monies. We'll begin on page one of your Econ 101 textbook..."

Dude, minimum wage is a bad economic policy and that is not the gut, that is economics. A minimum wage is a price floor and as all effective price floors do it has a negative impact on the amount consumed, it creates a surplus which can be known as unemployment. I have read many economists who have claimed that minimum wages are bad such as Milton Friedman, Adair Turner, and others. In fact just look at this, it is from the government.
Minimum wage (http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm)

Do you see how many of the things listed below are bad? Yeah, stop being a dumbass and acusing conservatives of being bad at economics when it is in fact the liberals who cannot accept that price floors are bad for the economy. By the way, I can dig up a few more articles on the ill-effects of minimum wage as well. But instead of going to some openly biased source like you might do later I figured that you should be able to accept a .gov.

ive asked myself the same thing.

where are the rush limbaugh of the left?


Air America, Al Franken.

Some would say National Public Radio.

On the other hand, it would appear from the ratings that next to no one listens to Air America, and few people listen to National Public Radio, compared to the number that listen to Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy.

Just because you rant on the air, doesn't mean that you'll have an actual audience with significant numbers.

And radio is not the only medium. Plenty of people talk on Democratic Underground, and read things like DailyKos. Apparently, blogs played a major part in Lieberman's defeat, so maybe people shouldn't be too upset about not having a radio station with equivalent rating numbers.

Here in the DC area, Air America's numbers border on the unmeasurably low. But that doesn't mean there aren't people communicating in some other way.

I would also add that people turn to the station they want to hear. Since we have a plethora of choices compared to when I was a kid (we only had three TV national TV networks then), you aren't forced to listen to an opposing viewpoint. While I may constantly scan many sources, most don't have the time - they'll listen to Pacifica Radio Network, and not listen to anything conservative - or listen to Rush Limbaugh and not listen to anything remotely liberal.

I would say that with the current ratings for TV news and radio news, conservatives have a larger audience in the US - putting more liberal channels on the air isn't going to change the ratings at all.

And a conservative would say that allowing people in the richest country in the world to be wallow in soul-crushing immorality is treating them like shit. The only reason you view the one as good and the other as opporessive is because of your own particular biases.

What exactly constitutes this "soul-crushing immorality" that you're talking about. You're touching of fascism here. When the economy is working, people work. It's nothing to do with their immorality. If the government wants to stop "soul-crushing immorality" they should start with Halliburton and Bechtel.

The only reason you thing otherwise is because of your biases. I think as I do because I've actually taken a look at the policies involved and have a rudimentary sense of cause and effect.

And government is just a bastion of ethics, honesty and wonderment. The fact is, if you don't like the way a charity does business, you can just choose to ignore it and not support it, if you don't like the way your government does business, you're pretty much fucked.
And don't give me that bulllshit about voting, the fact is that it only takes one populist to render my "oversight" of the government irrelevant.

Well, the people of Connecticut would probably disagree with your opinion on voting not counting. The problem with leaving it up to private charities is that the job doesn't get done. Those charities always exist to further their own agendas. Just take a look at how much Pat Robertson has used his charities as a front for mineral mining deals that basicly screwed the nations he was mining ing.

Google "Pat Robertson" and liberia.

Really, so that must mean that poverty is extinguished now? I guess we don't need those programs at all.
You can't "fix" poverty. Its always there, like disease and death, a constant that has existed as long as human society.

No, but it would be less of a problem if conservatives in their ruling periods tried to update it to be in keeping with its original intent instead of just trying to destroy it. And if you think that conservatives haven't been trying to destroy it for the last 70 years then you clearly don't know what the deal was with his privatisation scheme.

No, scientific advances make the world a better place, human achievement makes the world a better place. "Agendas" range from "no change" to "worse."

Scientific advances like stem cell research that conservatives oppose? Scientific advances like increased fuel efficiency, or alternative fuel research, or acknowledging that global warming exists?

As opposed to the tolerance you're now showing to Conservative thought? Every time the Right Wing makes a play, the Left Wing responds with shrill screams of terror at the idea that their social programming might be "halted" (aka "reformed").

Tolerating ideas isn't the same as tolerating mistakes and disaster. And certainly not the same as tolerating intolerance.

This is the same bullshit strawman that the movie reviewer in the OP tried to pull about tolerance of Christianity in V for Vendetta. "the movie claims to promote tolerance, but doesn't tollerate christian intolerance."

No, both groups have their idea of what makes a "perfect" society, and both are trying to implement that society on the rest of the world. Leftist propaganda is no more legitimate than that of the Right.

Except that we had the chance to build two countries according to liberal principles. Japan and Germany. Both thrived. Conservatives had several chances in South America and now Iraq. See how that's working out?

Yes a woefuly inaccurate one. Its more liberals do as you say and the conservativis tell him to go bother some one else,ie relly on donations from charity.

Liberals - "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. So if you don't know how to fish, give him a fish so that he'll live long enough to find someone to teach him."

Conservatvies - "Give a man a fish, he knows where to come for fish. Teach a man to fish and you've just destroyed your market base. If he can't afford to buy your fish, then he wasn't part of the market base, so better to save your fish for more productive people."

(with apologies to Jackie Kashian.)

Dude, minimum wage is a bad economic policy and that is not the gut, that is economics. A minimum wage is a price floor and as all effective price floors do it has a negative impact on the amount consumed, it creates a surplus which can be known as unemployment. I have read many economists who have claimed that minimum wages are bad such as Milton Friedman, Adair Turner, and others. In fact just look at this, it is from the government.
Minimum wage (http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/50years.htm)

You mean the government that is completly dominated by Conservatives?

As for the economists. Theory is fine for predictive value, but we're passed that now. We have data to observe and to appraise those theories.

Do you see how many of the things listed below are bad? Yeah, stop being a dumbass and acusing conservatives of being bad at economics when it is in fact the liberals who cannot accept that price floors are bad for the economy. By the way, I can dig up a few more articles on the ill-effects of minimum wage as well. But instead of going to some openly biased source like you might do later I figured that you should be able to accept a .gov.

You figured wrong. Outside of FOX news and Frontpagemag.com there is no source more biased than a politician, or group thereof.

I understand the arguments that conservatives put forward. I also understand the arguments put forward by the Flat Earthers and the Geocentrists.

Problem is, their reasoning, which "makes sense" doesn't match observable facts.

According to conservatives, increasing the minimum wage would have a bad impact on the economy.

According to liberals, it would have a good one.

Now let's look at the facts. Every place that it happens (higher minimum wage) people have more money to spend. The negative impact on businesses (higher overhead) is more than made up for with increased demand for their products, which results in more revenue, and even more jobs (hiring people to meet increased demand). Sure, you could say that the increase in demand woulnd't be high enough to make a difference. But that doesn't address the fact that it actually is.

Liberals - "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. So if you don't know how to fish, give him a fish so that he'll live long enough to find someone to teach him."

Conservatvies - "Give a man a fish, he knows where to come for fish. Teach a man to fish and you've just destroyed your market base. If he can't afford to buy your fish, then he wasn't part of the market base, so better to save your fish for more productive people."

(with apologies to Jackie Kashian.)


See here's how you call the bullshit...the Conservatives changed / reformed the welfare laws so that to qualify you must be either looking for , or training for a job . And they have jobs programs as part of welfare . So in REALITY they are feeding fish while teaching to fish .

The liberals had welfare set up so that collecting welfare WAS YOUR JOB . And generations of families stayed on it .

Liberals all think that someone must take care of and guide the individual like a child , that they the elite know better what is good for everyone .

Well thats the height of arrogance and all I can say to that is ;

FUCK YOU .

I'll take care of myself thank you , I moved out and became an adult at 18 .
I will take care of myself and my family and be a productive member of society..stay the fuck out of my business .

I do not like liberals and liberal thinking as much as I myself have a liberal attitude towards PERSONAL freedom...its just that , PERSONAL..I make no claim that its good for everyone else and could care less what OTHERS do with their own body as long as they leave me out of it ...unless I consent of course..:D

With vitrolic conservative movie reviews like this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21621), this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20515), and this (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18596), coming out with only the flimsiest of pretexts, why is there such a dearth of the liberal equivalent.

I was watching "the Island" for the first time last night (because it was on cable) and I realized that it was based on the public uneasiness over theraputic cloning. There's nothing new about this, all good sci-fi bases it's movies on things that people in the real world are bothered by. Even the original Superman was based on the writer's attitudes regarding opposition to the New Deal (well, not the original original. he was a villain).

But what I'm wondering is why aren't there so many liberal reviewers complaining about conservative propaganda in movies when it's right there to see. This isn't the only example. It's been going back to 50's movies like The Blob and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Hulk and Godsend were both anti-cloning and anti stemcell movies in the last 5 years. But no backlash from the liberals who supposedly control the media.

And I'm not even going to bother with the Conservative uproar over all the animated Disney movies (every fucking time!).

Why is it that conservatives get their panties in a bunch looking for anti-conservative messages that they make up, but you never see the same thing coming from liberals?


I believe the term is WATB (whiny ass titty babies).

Are you out of your mind? Conservative radio and TV is all about lack of analysis. When Bush was asked if he denounced the Swift Boat ads, and his answer was "I denounce all the 527 groups. I always have" Why did no one challenge him.

Why did noone say "um, when you started your campaign you said that 527 groups were good for democracy. How can you say you've always denounced them?"

Or "Mr. President, we're not asking about the existence of 527 groups, we're asking if you denounce people who are lying about the honorable service of a Vietnam Vet just to get you into office. Do you denounce that?



No. You've got it wrong there again. Yes. Liberals believe in justice, but we also believe in analysis.

Conservatives will tell you that with higher minimum wages you get a reduction in employment and higher inflation. Liberals point out that that's not true, but to conservatives it feels true. And that's all that matters to them.

When Bush pushed to invade Iraq people argued that there was no evidence that it would do any good. His response was that he knew it would because of faith.

Where is the intelligence and analysis that says that we should outlaw gay marriage or not allow marijuana to be used as medicine?

There isn't any. Those policies are based on the fact that, to conservatives, they feel wrong.

What you are calling a lack of brains and an abundance of "feeling" is in fact an understanding of justice and the benifits of a government that helps the down trodden.

Yes, to a liberal it feels better to enact policies that result in more money for the poor. To the conservatives it feels better to give money to the rich.

When analysed, it becomes clear that it provides economic benifits to push money to the bottom to stimulate the economy. When rationalized (i.e. one's feelings justified by defense mechanisms when confronted with contrary evidence) conservatives say that more money at the top means more jobs.

But that's contrary to observed fact. But does it matter to conservatives?
No. Why? Because conservatives vote, and legislate, based on feelings.


First of all, Bush is not a conservative. He is a theocratist.
Second of all,
it is not government's job to give money. Government does not produce
anything, so it doesn't make any money. Money is an abtract representation
of exchange of goods and services . Government does not produce goods, so it cannot give money without first taking it from someone. Those whose efforts produce more goods have more money. Before you go on yelling about corruption, I'll mention that this is just crime. There is crime at all levels of society and some of it happens to be on the top. Most of the rich people have made their money by producing more than the poor people.
The government has no business feeling good about giving money to poor
people -- it's not government's money to give. We the people, empower
the government -- not the other way around. This having been said, minimal wage is unethical if nothing else. I don't the government telling me how to run my business as long as I don't harm anyone (by making harmful products or polluting the environment). The government may collect taxes to provide the most essential services -- education, infrastructrue (this one is questionable -- private sector often does a better job), etc.
None of this is because it makes me feel better. This is not about making some feel better than other. This is about respecting people's rights -- the right of liberty, life, and prosperity.
Thirdly, the conservative have gotten so rotten because they think they
are being robbed blind -- they make the money (i.e., goods and services) and others get to spend it (food and housing for OTHER people). You have to admit that someone taking your money under the excuse that they will provide education for your children and then spending it on feeding people you never met and don't care about might seem like theft.
And forthly, because the conrvatives are fighting against the thieving poor they are forced to take the side of the the sometimes-corrupt rich. This is how the anti-enviromentalism and christin right got their foothold in the republican party. Teddy Roosevelt (a republican) was a huge environmentalist. But now the republicans are forced to give up the values of
life because that is profitable for the people subsidizing them. We need a third party. But as soon as politics becomes about what feels good rather than about what is right, you know the corruption will follow.

Actually, that had a lot to do with the desire to deport a lot of immagrant mexicans, as well.

Funny how the "stamp act" never had any actual stamps produced.
With one, you could legally possess the stuff....

Showing that Mr. Liberal democrat was a "racist" as well

When it became clear that Vietnam was a mistake, he acknowledged it and didn't run for reelection. Unlike conservative Bush who screwed everything up and lied about it, coercing the news networks not to run unflattering stories until after the election so that the people wouldn't know how badly he was doing.

But he was the one who screwed it up in the first place, shooting down your suggestion that it is only the conservatives who screw up, and that liberals are lily pure and never screw up.

QUOTE=New Domici]He was the one who sent military aid to the corrupt nationalist government of Vietnam getting us involved there in the first place. If he hadn't, then Vietnam wouldn't have had to turn to the communists for help in overthrowing them, or the military dictatorship that followed that we also supported.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but you've confused Truman and Ike.


Yes he is. He isn't a paleoconservative, but then again, conservative ideology is dead these days.

If so your argument that GWB is a conservative is shot in the foot.


Even people who identify as conservatives believe in positions that are contrary to most of those of the Republican party. They are almost literally voting for political ghosts.



But as a strictly intellectual exercise... I suppose the fact that all the Republicans up for reelection happen to be treating him like kryptonite now, I suppose that their revulsion for him makes him similar to the word liberal if not actual liberal politics.

Nope. It's his liberal policies (big government, government intervention in the personal lives of the people, Wilsonian idealistic interventionsim) that make him a liberal.

maybe because they are real assholes

repub/democrap - both are in it for the power

nuking the .gov and starting over is one way by voting - however when only 30+% of people vote we get what we deserve

want liberalism to work? learn to think objectively - same thing for conservatism

and vote

You mean the government that is completly dominated by Conservatives?

As for the economists. Theory is fine for predictive value, but we're passed that now. We have data to observe and to appraise those theories.



You figured wrong. Outside of FOX news and Frontpagemag.com there is no source more biased than a politician, or group thereof.

I understand the arguments that conservatives put forward. I also understand the arguments put forward by the Flat Earthers and the Geocentrists.

Problem is, their reasoning, which "makes sense" doesn't match observable facts.

According to conservatives, increasing the minimum wage would have a bad impact on the economy.

According to liberals, it would have a good one.

Now let's look at the facts. Every place that it happens (higher minimum wage) people have more money to spend. The negative impact on businesses (higher overhead) is more than made up for with increased demand for their products, which results in more revenue, and even more jobs (hiring people to meet increased demand). Sure, you could say that the increase in demand woulnd't be high enough to make a difference. But that doesn't address the fact that it actually is.
Ok, but this was from the joint economic committee and really, because this is a politicized issue it is difficult to get unbiased facts. What????? Where the fuck did you learn economics? Minimum wage is just like one of Bastiat's sophisms, it is like saying that breaking windows is good for the economy. It is not like businesses just throw away their money if they don't spend it on workers, they spend it where it is needed, that is essentially like arguing that we should have milk price floors to allow farmers to spend more money on their milk. What you have essentially argued is bullshit economics that was proven to be illogical back in the 1800s. By the way, you are a sanctimonious liberal asshole so this thread is a misnomer.

I mean hell, it is basic macro-economics I am talking about right here. Economics (http://www.cooleconomics.com/prin-gen/prin-market.pdf) Just go to the part where it talks about price floors.

So I took the time to actually read over the whole thread before replying, so I realize some of my statements might be out of date, but I feel they are relevant.

Both liberals and conservatives are very confident in their beliefs in terms of how things ought to be done. Liberals look at Rush Limbaugh and see an arrogant hypocritical liar, conservatives look at Al Franken and see a political hack who got famous for being a comedian and a smart aleck.

Kinda silly to srgue over whose talking head is better. At the end of the day, they're both just guys who get paid to be opinionated.

Kinda like movie critics. (What ARE the qualifications to become one?)

I'll take exception to this though... when New Domici lists a few issues and the meat of the argument is:"If you haven't interpreted these items the way liberals do, you're mmisinformed!" I'll try and illustrate this one at a time:

They are less informed. The statistics have been compiled. The 70% of the people who thought that Saddam was behind 9/11 were not liberals.
This isn't an unreasonable one, although it's an attempt to prove a negative, in the way it's stated. Does that mean the 70% non-liberals were all conservative, or was some subset of that number undecided? It seems to imply that they're all conservatives is a bit misleading.

Also, it would be useful to know the source of this data.


The people who think that raising minimum wage hurts the economy are not liberals.
This one pretty blatantly says "If you haven't come to the economic conclusions I believe in, you're misinformed." Hardly an original argument, is it? Doesn't everybody basically imply this? :)


The "Swift Boat Vetrans" and those who believed them (and believe them still) were not liberals.
This one is funny because as far as I know, the story told by the swift boat vets was never proven, nor was it disproven. That relegates it to the realm of opinion and credibility, and has nothing to do with the state of being informed or uninformed.


The people who think that the death penalty deters murderers are not liberals.

Again, this one is a matter of debate and opinion, and it is the height of arrogance to conclude the opposition is misinformed simply because they disagree with you, and for no other (apparent) reason.


The people who think that Clinton made it easier to get welfare are not liberals.
This one might be provable one way or the other, but probably not without debate. Again, hardly conclusive.


The people who think that we have a real, declared war "on terror," that justifies limiting civil liberties are not liberals.

We're really getting into the realm of opinion and speculation now. Why am I the first one to challenge this?


The people who think that the ACLU supports NAMBLA and wants to outlaw religion are not liberals.
Most people don't even know what NAMBLA is, let alone link it to the ACLU. This is getting into speculation.


The people who think that marijuana is a gateway drug that's more dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol are not liberals.
Mildly more realistic, but still fits the form of "you either see it my way or you're misinformed."


The people who think that marijuana has no medical uses are not liberals.

This is probably fallacious. Most conservatives acknowledge that marijuana has a medical application, but those who opose its use generally endorse some kind of alternative. In either case, it's another arrogant assertion.


The people who think that people are not equal, but all "scientific" studies are, are not liberals.
Not really sure what this means. One could turn this argument around by referencing embryonic stem cells.


The jury is in. Conservatives are less informed. That's why they have "con" right in their name.
This statement doesn't even mean anything.

What's also implicit in the statements above, but I felt it would be gratuitous to state in each reply, is the idea that somehow ALL liberals agree on these issues.... which is ironic because I bet if you told New Domici that liberals all follow the same ideology like lemmings, he/she would surely argue the point.

Ok, but this was from the joint economic committee and really, because this is a politicized issue it is difficult to get unbiased facts. What????? Where the fuck did you learn economics? Minimum wage is just like one of Bastiat's sophisms, it is like saying that breaking windows is good for the economy. It is not like businesses just throw away their money if they don't spend it on workers, they spend it where it is needed, that is essentially like arguing that we should have milk price floors to allow farmers to spend more money on their milk. What you have essentially argued is bullshit economics that was proven to be illogical back in the 1800s. By the way, you are a sanctimonious liberal asshole so this thread is a misnomer.

I mean hell, it is basic macro-economics I am talking about right here. Economics (http://www.cooleconomics.com/prin-gen/prin-market.pdf) Just go to the part where it talks about price floors.

You have to consider the fact that inflation is occuring. The price of living is rising, while minimum wage is not.

If you were to raise minimum wage, these things could happen:

The worker has more money.
The worker can better afford healthcare, resulting in less days of missed work, increasing productivity.
The worker can afford a day care for their child, increasing their available hours.
The worker can afford healthier food, resulting in healthier children, resulting in healthy future workers and less time spent at home caring for a sick or malnurished child.
The worker feels more comfortable financially and will spend more money, resulting in a stronger economy.

These things may also happen:

The general price of services rises to compensate for higher wages.
Benefits are slashed, resulting in the same poor performance from before.
Businesses have to fire people, resulting in a higher unemployment rate.
...

It seems that logically, raising the minimum wage would be a good idea regardless, because there's a world of improvements enjoyed by workers and the people they work for because of it. I honestly think that most American would support spending 2 extra dollars for a steak, comfortable in the knowledge that at least the poor bastards who cook it, bring it to him, and clean up after him when he leaves can afford rent and a nice dinner, rather than just rent and cat food.

You have to consider the fact that inflation is occuring. The price of living is rising, while minimum wage is not.

If you were to raise minimum wage, these things could happen:

The worker has more money.
The worker can better afford healthcare, resulting in less days of missed work, increasing productivity.
The worker can afford a day care for their child, increasing their available hours.
The worker can afford healthier food, resulting in healthier children, resulting in healthy future workers and less time spent at home caring for a sick or malnurished child.
The worker feels more comfortable financially and will spend more money, resulting in a stronger economy.

These things may also happen:

The general price of services rises to compensate for higher wages.
Benefits are slashed, resulting in the same poor performance from before.
Businesses have to fire people, resulting in a higher unemployment rate.
...

It seems that logically, raising the minimum wage would be a good idea regardless, because there's a world of improvements enjoyed by workers and the people they work for because of it. I honestly think that most American would support spending 2 extra dollars for a steak, comfortable in the knowledge that at least the poor bastards who cook it, bring it to him, and clean up after him when he leaves can afford rent and a nice dinner, rather than just rent and cat food.
Ok, I don't believe that there should be a price-floor for the wage-market and I don't think that governments should step in to determine what people sell their labor for and disagree with the existence of a minimum wage.

Minimum wage has not been shown to decrease the rate of poverty, studies often show that the poverty rate remains relatively the same after minimum wages are put in place which is back in that one link I posted above. Not only that but workers lose their jobs due to the nature of minimum wage. Minimum wages result in unhealthy labor markets with high unemployment which are bad.

Your conclusion is false, it is bad. It results in inefficiency, it extends government into a place it shouldn't go, it makes decisions for individuals, etc. It is not up to the government to decide how much stuff costs, nor is it up to the government to decide what individuals do with their money or their person, both are threats to individual freedom, and both are bad governing. I don't care what americans support, if they really felt as they did, they would donate their money to help the poor, this is taking the choice out of their hands, not only that but minimum wage workers != poor, teenagers and young persons are large groups that get minimum wages and if the minimum is increased then it is likely that some of these will not get employment which will be beneficial to them. Redistribution however, is not in the role of the government in the first place, unless you can point out to me the article where it says "we will take the money of individuals and give it to other individuals how he please". The government is here for public goods, externalities, and preservation of rights, not for reworking society as one sees fit.

What's also implicit in the statements above, but I felt it would be gratuitous to state in each reply, is the idea that somehow ALL liberals agree on these issues.... which is ironic because I bet if you told New Domici that liberals all follow the same ideology like lemmings, he/she would surely argue the point.


These things aren't a matter of opinion. What's a matter of opinion is whether we should still have a death penalty even though it's not a deterent. Does the government have the right to impose a minimum wage even though it does not reduce economic growth? It is not a matter of opinion on whether or not Marijuana has medical applications. It's a matter of fact.

Whether or not minimum wage increases kill jobs or death penalties deter killers are not matters of opinion. The facts are in. Those who continue to debate them do so because of an agenda.

The information is out there and is widely available, so I resent being called upon to source it. It speaks more of the ignorance of the debator than the controversy of the material when such widly available facts are called into question. New findings that are not well known, fine. But this stuff has been out there for a dogs age. I'll give you a few, but I have to draw the line somewhere. For the rest... Do your own homework. It is not my job to cure your ignorance.

Minimum wage (http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/press_060331.stm)

Medical Marijuana (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/126181.stm)
Death Penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/php/article.php?scid=12&did=168)
States Without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade
In the past ten years, the number of executions in the U.S. has increased while the murder rate has declined. Some commentators have maintained that the murder rate has dropped because of the increase in executions (see, e.g., W. Tucker, "Yes, the Death Penalty Deters," Wall St. Journal, June 21, 2002). However, during this decade the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty. Click here for more information and charts.

As for the rest. It's also common knowledge. Do some research yourself. These are not matters of opinion. Wise policy may be a matter of opinion, but the facts that those policies are based on are not. And when someone must cite false facts to justify his policy, you know that even he does not believe in it.

What exactly constitutes this "soul-crushing immorality" that you're talking about. You're touching of fascism here. When the economy is working, people work. It's nothing to do with their immorality. If the government wants to stop "soul-crushing immorality" they should start with Halliburton and Bechtel.
I'm not presenting my point of view, so quit trying to attack it. I (as an anarchist) am simply pointing out that your system is just as terrible as their system, just a slightly different flavor.
The Left is simply the Chocolate to the Right's Strawberry in the arsenic laced Neopolitan Ice cream that is being shoved down everyone's throat.
And, um, taxes are the Vanilla that connects the two. Or something.
The only reason you thing otherwise is because of your biases. I think as I do because I've actually taken a look at the policies involved and have a rudimentary sense of cause and effect.
My biases are against interference, whatever the motivation or source as people have a right to do what they want with what they have.
Now, if you would be so kind as to quit trying to paint me as a Right-Winger and pick a new tack.
Well, the people of Connecticut would probably disagree with your opinion on voting not counting. The problem with leaving it up to private charities is that the job doesn't get done. Those charities always exist to further their own agendas. Just take a look at how much Pat Robertson has used his charities as a front for mineral mining deals that basicly screwed the nations he was mining ing.

Google "Pat Robertson" and liberia.
Ah, but see how you don't have to give money to Pat Robertson. I don't have to finance his corruption, and so I don't. But what do I do about the rampant corruption in the US government? I get to vote every couple of years, attend a rally or four, and continue financing their immorality.
And even if (somehow) all the politicians I voted for made it into office, I'd still have selected less than 2% of the National legislature. Now that's some oversight, isn't it?
No, but it would be less of a problem if conservatives in their ruling periods tried to update it to be in keeping with its original intent instead of just trying to destroy it. And if you think that conservatives haven't been trying to destroy it for the last 70 years then you clearly don't know what the deal was with his privatisation scheme.
Privatisation is a prime example of Leftist fear-mongering. The "evil Republicans" were coming along to reduce government control by just the tiniest bit, and suddenly the howling started.
Why? Because Social Security money goes into the government coffers before it is distributed on the current system. That gives the government control (as well as another pocket into which they can stick their filthy little fingers), and so they'd rather die than hand it back to the people that they seize it from.
Scientific advances like stem cell research that conservatives oppose? Scientific advances like increased fuel efficiency, or alternative fuel research, or acknowledging that global warming exists?
Once again, I've never implied that the Right is any better. That's not what we're arguing, so qill you please cut it out?
The matter at hand is whether the Left and Right are equally fascist. To argue this point successfully, I have to have already conceded to you that the Right Wing is filled with fascist pigs.
Tolerating ideas isn't the same as tolerating mistakes and disaster. And certainly not the same as tolerating intolerance.
And a Right Winger would say that "Tolerating ideas isn't the same as tolerating the murder of the unborn."
This is the same bullshit strawman that the movie reviewer in the OP tried to pull about tolerance of Christianity in V for Vendetta. "the movie claims to promote tolerance, but doesn't tollerate christian intolerance."
No, she was complaining that the movie tarred all Christians as ignorant, sex-obsessed psychopaths, and if that isn't a sign of intolerance then I suppose that Birth of a Nation wasn't nearly as controversial in its depiction of blacks as everyone thought.
Except that we had the chance to build two countries according to liberal principles. Japan and Germany. Both thrived. Conservatives had several chances in South America and now Iraq. See how that's working out?
Germany? You mean East Germany, right? The place that was plunged into economic depression and despair while being raped by the Leftist policies of the USSR? Or maybe you mean the Germany of the Interwar period, a lawless land of the disenfranchised that very quickly threw the Leftists out of power to install the Mustached Menace of Münich?
The fact is, Leftist efforts to rebuild Germany since the beginning of the 20th Century are currently 1 for 3; not exactly a ringing endorsement.
And Japan? MacArthur was hardly on par with modern Leftists, was he?
I also notice that you failed to mention the various other (most wonderful) countries rebuilt by Leftists. Funny that, I guess they weren't "real Left", just that silly "fake Left" that seems to exist to take all the blame for when your types fuck up.

To address another point, both Japan and West Germany immediatley after WWII were just as lawless, violent and dangerous as current day Iraq. The news wasn't quite as vigorous in those days, though, and the military was better at keeping things quiet.

These things aren't a matter of opinion. What's a matter of opinion is whether we should still have a death penalty even though it's not a deterent. Does the government have the right to impose a minimum wage even though it does not reduce economic growth? It is not a matter of opinion on whether or not Marijuana has medical applications. It's a matter of fact.
It would seem that you missed my point. That's okay I don't blame you, since you don't seem to have read my reply carefully anyway.


Whether or not minimum wage increases kill jobs or death penalties deter killers are not matters of opinion. The facts are in. Those who continue to debate them do so because of an agenda.

That's possible. It's also possible that your sources aren't completely neutral, in which case their validity can be called into question.

It's also possible that linking the death penalty directly to the crime rate is an oversimplification. When you say "The presence of the death penalty has no impact on the crime rate," it's possible for someone to respons by saying "The presence of the death penatly mitigated a HIGHER crime rate." Who's in the right? Probably someone with a much more detailed overall picture of what's happening and why.

Once again, you can't just say "I believe thusly and the facts are in, therefore if you disagree you're either misinformed or are following an agenda."

As if you're not on an agenda!


The information is out there and is widely available, so I resent being called upon to source it. It speaks more of the ignorance of the debator than the controversy of the material when such widly available facts are called into question.
Your resentment at having your sources being called into question speaks volumes. What did you expect to do, waltz into a thread, make a bunch of assertions about how "the facts are in" and then expect your statements to be taken at face value without question? Who are you that your word is beyond reproach?

Again, you reveal the arrogance of this argument by saying, in effect, "if you demand I cite my sources, you're ignorant."


New findings that are not well known, fine. But this stuff has been out there for a dogs age. I'll give you a few, but I have to draw the line somewhere. For the rest... Do your own homework. It is not my job to cure your ignorance.

This "stuff" may well have been around for a while but that, in itself, doesn't make it valid, nor does that mean, somehow, that there aren't articles and sources out there that draw a different conclusion. When people want to see your sources, it's not to prove your honesty, but to evaluate the validity of the source itself. For you to deride someone for wanting to see it is, in a word, arrogant.


Minimum wage (http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/press_060331.stm)

Medical Marijuana (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/126181.stm)
Death Penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/php/article.php?scid=12&did=168)

Although after seeing this list of sources I can now understand your hesitation. For sources, you cite the bbc, widely seen as a liberally slanted new organization, deathpenaltyinfo, which clearly has their own agenda to advance, and fiscalpolicy.org, which isn't exactly a household name.

You do understand, don't you, that you can't just believe everything you read on the Internet?


As for the rest.
Nice avoidance.... sort of.

It's also common knowledge. Do some research yourself. These are not matters of opinion. Wise policy may be a matter of opinion, but the facts that those policies are based on are not. And when someone must cite false facts to justify his policy, you know that even he does not believe in it.
Just saying something is common knowledge doesn't make it so. Just insisting that things aren't a matter of opinion doesn't necessarily mean they aren't. You assume an air of infalibility. You say to us reading the thread "MY facts and MY sources are beyond reproach! My opinion is a statement of absolute truth!" (Which is funny because liberals resist the concept of absoulte truth) "If you do not accept what I say at face value, then you are either misinformed or persuing an agenda!"

Can't you make an argument that relies on good, strong sources, and at the same time is open to the possibility that someone else might also have a good, strong argument?

Wasn't it you that said conservatives are closed-minded and won't listen to others?

New Domici, are you a Conservative?:eek:

Second of all,
it is not government's job to give money. Government does not produce
anything, so it doesn't make any money.
Oh yes? Been minting our own have we...? :eek:
Where I come all our money is 'made' by the government, there are laws against anyone else cutting in on their money minting monopoly...how's that for repression?!;)

The thing that really gets me giggling about the linked to reviews is their (lack of) quality. Take this gem.
"This movie is a case of the Emperor wears no clothing. Only she's a geisha. And she's wearing an eight-layer kimono, instead. "
Ahh, yes, astute observation, just like the Emperor wearing no clothes only, not an emperor and not unclothed, but otherwise identical no doubt...:confused: :D

I would say that with the current ratings for TV news and radio news, conservatives have a larger audience in the US - putting more liberal channels on the air isn't going to change the ratings at all.
This vindicates Domici's point. That liberals think for themselves rather than listen to the talking heads like Franken, while conservatives are quite happy to simply listen to and parrot Limbaugh and the like.

Oh yes? Been minting our own have we...? :eek:
Where I come all our money is 'made' by the government, there are laws against anyone else cutting in on their money minting monopoly...how's that for repression?!;)

The thing that really gets me giggling about the linked to reviews is their (lack of) quality. Take this gem.
"This movie is a case of the Emperor wears no clothing. Only she's a geisha. And she's wearing an eight-layer kimono, instead. "
Ahh, yes, astute observation, just like the Emperor wearing no clothes only, not an emperor and not unclothed, but otherwise identical no doubt...:confused: :D

printing (or minting) money is not "making money". That simply isn't what the expression means.