CNN criticizes President Bush. What a shocker!! Next thing you know, they'll run a puff-piece about John Kerry!
Yes, and the Washington Post, the New York Times, the SF Chronicle, the Boton Globe, the LA Times, and most of the major newspapers in Eurpoe and beyond. That damn liberal press - er, liberal media for that matter. The next thing you know the conservatives will start posting rebuttal articles from right wing blog sites. You do have Fox and the no-spin zone, though. And Dan Rather is just out to get the Bushes. Maybe he should sell the ranch he co-owns with Donald Rumsfeld in Taos.
I think it is hilarious when the neo cons whine and cry about the "liberal media". I live in the most liberal area of one of the most liberal states -- how many non-NPR liberal radio stations can you name? Not one - nota. I can name at least 5 that are 100% Cons. Some liberal media huh?
There are no liberal talk-radio stations because there is no market for it. Based on ratings, there isn't much of a market for liberal TV news shows, either. CNN and MSNBC are tanking, big-time. If Fox News is biased to the right (which I will admit), and they have the best ratings, what does that tell you?
It tells me a whole lot about the sad state of intellect and compassion in the American population as a whole these days....
So, what you're saying is that the majority of the American population is stupid and heartless. I should expect nothing less from the party of "tolerance" and "diversity".
Demagoguery from the Balcony of Starbuck's? I wrote a long, angry post. Then I deleted it. Smart me, for once. Still, it may not be politically astute--and it might be morally wrong--to parrot a cartoon image of the mean, dumb, heartless Americans as an appeal to get their mean, dumb, heartless American votes. We'll see.
Response to Bruce... QUOTE]Originally posted by Bruce So, what you're saying is that the majority of the American population is stupid and heartless. I should expect nothing less from the party of "tolerance" and "diversity". [/QUOTE] Bruce, No - I purposely did not use those "fighting words" because I'm not particulary into introducing even more divisiveness into this political season. However, what I did emphasize was "sadness" and dismay at the level of intellect and compassion on the part of the American public if, indeed, Fox News and related messengers are taken at face value over more objective reporting, or even reporting that introduces an alternate world view. Intellect: 1. When the party in power is clearly stealing from the middle class (90% of us) to enrich the coffers of the ultra-rich, and the majority of the population keeps electing these guys - that calls into question the intellect of this segment of the population. The rich clearly understand what it means to vote with one's pocketbook; it is sad and disappointing that the middle class apparently do not. 2. When the population as a whole is easily distracted by sensationalist news stories, whether from Fox or any of the other more "liberal" news agencies, from the real issues of the day - health care, security, and leadership in a global economy - that also calls into question the overall intellect of the voting population. Compassion: 1. When the majority of the population thinks that pre-emptively and unilaterally attacking sovereign nations, without allies or support, and furthermore those nations have not attacked us and are not directly connected to those who did (i.e., the Iraq / Al-Qaeda "weak link"), that calls into question both the intellect and the compassion of the voting public. 2. When the majority of the population does not think that health care is a priority, allows health care providers to run amok with price increases, and feels that the largest and richest nation in the world should provide health care on the basis of an individual's ability to pay (i.e., the poor get little or nothing, while the wealthier segments of the population get good health care), that also calls into question the compassion of the voting public. These are just a couple of examples that I can easily think of in response to your criticism of my commentary on the sad state of intellect and compassion in the American voting public at this point in our history. But, no - I do not think the American public is "stupid" or "heartless". Just duped by a clever propaganda machine, misled by our profit-seeking leaders, and convinced of the principles of self-determination to the point where we are willing to see our children starve and go without adequate health care in order to have funds to fire the first shot in a troubling new foreign policy of "pre-emptive" wars of aggression against whoever the current regime declares as "the enemy". By the way, "the enemy" (according to our government) is also sometimes our own citizens, as in the mis-guided, failed, and long-overdue-for-a-painful-death internal war we are conducting on our own people, otherwise known as "the war on drugs". In conclusion, live and let live, vote for freedom and democracy in every sense of the word, and stop the madness of filling the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of ALL the rest of us, not to mention our world reputation as a nation of compassion and fairness. - Carl
Where are they "clearly stealing"? I would honestly like to know if you can tell me. I would fall into that 90% and so would almost all my friends. These past few years we have all noticed that we are paying out less taxes and usually have more money at the end of the year. I also don't think the answer lies in getting Kerry into office, as he has proven he is for large government programs that would require tax rates to be raised. While I am all for helping others*, I don't think the answer to the majoriy of our nations problems is to throw money at it, especially throwing it towards large bloated federal programs. * The other day as I was driving down a long stretch of highway I noticed a truck pulled over into the grass, afew miles ahead I saw a man walking with a gas can in his hand. Gussing this was the owner of the truck I pulled over and gave the man a ride to the gas station and back to his truck. As the man got into my car his words were: "God bless you, I have been walking for awhile now, just counting the fishes** and Kerry stickers as they drive by." **The little christian fish people place on the back of their car.
Yet newpapers like the NY Times, Washington Post etc. enjoy healthy circulations. As the conservatives like to rant, these are "liberal rags." So does that mean that liberals read, while conservatives sit around and watch television? As a result, conservatives (on this site even) list Sean Hannity as a conservative intellectual. I rest my case. Abbacabba writes, "These past few years we have all noticed that we are paying out less taxes and usually have more money at the end of the year." After you notice that extra $200 bucks in your pocket, you need to ask the additional question, "what kind of world are you living in, and does the $200 really make life that much better?" Quality of life is a whole lot more complex than the spare change in your pocket. Oh I know, the conservatives will argue that all those $100 bills in people's pockets will create new jobs and grow the economy and boost the stock market etc. By almost any conceivable measure, the middle and lower classes are worse off today than they were 4 years ago. For most people, I'd guess that $200 goes towads paying down credit, and keeping the repo man at bay for another month. That kind of stuff don't grow the economy.
I was not trying make it sound like it does. Those are all personal problems. If you have large credit card debt, stop using the cards. Education is one way to fix that. Buy a house, car, TV, necklace that will put you in debt or is above your level on income... Tough. People should be held acountable for their own personal spending. I do think that issues like these should be covered by the childrens *parents* before they enter the real world. If not there then how about in school? But I do not need extra money taken out of my pocket to cover someone elses bankrupcy or to cover more unemployment. I did not grow up wealthy, nor did I luck into a high paying job early on. Neither have I received large sums of money from family members. I make ~40k a year. I own 3 cars, all paid for.(bought used) Have 20k left on my home that i bought last year(110k home). Large down payment, and only have a monthly payment of 300$. I *own* everything else outright. The only thing I have ever had to purchase with credit is my wifes ring which I paid off in two months. The way I am able to do these things is by living within my means. I don't buy things that I don't need. I try to fix things before buying new ones(from TV's to Cars). I know it could be argued that not everyone can be like this, but lets face it, the majority of people spend well beyond their income level. The vast minority might actually have encountered some "hard times" by no fault of their own, and those people do need help. One can easily argue either way. Conservitaves mostly state that the past year has been one of the best -if not the best- year of growth in history. With facts to back them up. Liberals can state things like the amount of people living in poverty has gone up. Again with facts. But both sets of facts are only part of the entire picture. I'm open to ideas of others, can you give me some examples of "worse off today?"
While I admit I am seeing a LITTLE more in my paycheck, I do not see a whole lot of tax savings as a whole. Because of unfunded fluff legislation (no child left behind - all fluff - no substance), and increased tax rates at the local and state end, my actual tax rate has remained pretty consistant over the years. (perhaps gone up a bit). No offense Bruce, but the government has to pay those 3%/50 retirement plans for LE somehow -- and it isn't done with air. (one of the most "fiscially conversative" areas of CA, SD County is going bankrupt because of these type of pensions). While Bush may look good on his end for lowing taxes at the federal level, it has to be aborbed at the state and local level. I don't like taxes, but I do want Police and Fire protection, Military, city services, etc. All of these are not cheap. Abbacabba: Where do you live? A $110K home? Wow - my house went up in value that amount alone last year. The housing market for 4+ bedroom homes in the Silicon Valley is going nuts - my neighbors house sold yesterday for $6K over asking (710K) - just last year it was appraised at 600K. Just nuts - too bad I am not sellling - I could sell the place and with the equity alone could buy a house outright in Colorado Springs (the only other area of the country I would consider living)
Tennessee 45 miles south of nashville. If I was to move 2 miles north(across a county line)the house would have been more like 160k. Had I bought in Nashville(where I work), I would have paid around 200k. 1100sq. feet. built in 1996, 3 bed, 2 bath, wood floors and a garage. 3/4 acre corner lot in a subdivision(pretty nice too). A friend in San Diego with a similar sized home but much older(70's vs my 1996) paid 450k for a very similar layout. ** I may have come across alittle rough in my above posts, but I do have a problem with people expecting others to bail them out so much. If people would think before they acted, and took responcability for their actions there would be alot less debt and people asking for handouts, programs and assistance. I also do realize that the federal tax cuts were reasorbed at the state level in many places. But I do feel the tax cuts were 'fair' in that if you had paid in more you got more back(i.e tax cut for the rich)
