I was listening to Michele Mcphee on TKK tonight and heard her say this one.
O B A M A

One Big Ass Mistake America

So true !!!
Go can do a search and easily find a place to buy the bumper sticker !

None of the above wasn't on the ballot

Your kidding me right? America's mistake happened 8 years ago.

Didn't matter who got voted in....he was gonna have a rough ride! Give the man some time!

None of the above wasn't on the ballot

Sure it was. It's called Abstained.

:rollem:

did you really think it was gonna turn around in 60 something days? i don't understand all the hate on this guy, i mean come on it took 6 years to get into this mess... and what are is everyone going to say when it turns around???

I was listening to Michele Mcphee on TKK tonight and heard her say this one.
O B A M A

One Big Ass Mistake America

So true !!!
Go can do a search and easily find a place to buy the bumper sticker !

Amen!!

RON PAUL !!!!!!
Give him time???? He's bankrupting America, selling out our childrens future for socialist change and you want to give him more time?

did you really think it was gonna turn around in 60 something days? i don't understand all the hate on this guy, i mean come on it took 6 years to get into this mess... and what are is everyone going to say when it turns around???

The Bush/Obama plan is borderline criminal IMO. If a Republican had added the kind of dept this guy has in 60 days you would be calling for his head.

At least he didn't say 'Let them eat cake'

The Bush/Obama plan is borderline criminal IMO. If a Republican had added the kind of dept this guy has in 60 days you would be calling for his head.

We just did have a Republican running up this kind of debt and I don't remember anyone being too happy about it.

Obama's debt is pretty huge, but I think some of this can be justified due to economic circumstances and some can't.

Imagine if we elected McCain instead of Bush in 2000 over Gore. We probably wouldn't have had the prescription drug plan or the Iraq war. The budget would likely have been in much better shape and left America much better prepared to deal with the Global recession. Obama wouldn't have had a chance against Republican opposition.

-spence

Give him more time?
I couldnt find the youtube, but here is the transcript - look at what the HArvard Law professor had to say about salaries-

STEVE KROFT:

And now I think there are a lot of people say, "Look, we're not going to be able to keep our best people. They're not going to stay and work here for $250,000 a year when they can go work for a hedge fund, if they can find one that's still (LAUGHTER) working—

BARACK OBAMA:
I've told them directly. 'Cause I've heard some of this. they need to spend a little time outside of New York. Because— you know, if you go to North Dakota, or you go to Iowa, or you go to Arkansas, where folks would be thrilled to be making $75,000 a year— without a bonus, then I think they'd get a sense of why people are frustrated.

Huh? The President of the United STates is comparing the salaries of New York, Boston and San Francisco and saying, well you shold see what the make in ARKANSAS, IOWA and NORTH DAKOTA???????
That because MORON, the people who can do the job and get paid more money MOVE OUT OF AKANSAS, IOWA and NORTH DAKOTA!!! The market drives salaries. Whats the cost of living in Manhattan vs. ANYWHERE in North Dakota? I dont think I ever heard a more ignorant comment by a presidnet in my life.

RIJIMMY brought you this a month ago, their a little slow, but they're catching on.....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/23/campbell.brown.transparency/index.html#cnnSTCText

And the Patriot act scared you? Wheres code pink when you need them?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will push for unprecedented new regulatory powers on Tuesday to seize financial institutions whose failure would pose serious risks to the U.S. financial system, according to two senior administration officials.

McCain 2000.

RON PAUL !!!!!!
Give him time???? He's bankrupting America, selling out our childrens future for socialist change and you want to give him more time?


How about Ru Paul, give him a chance.

Obama's debt is pretty huge,


-spence

That's an understatement Spence. It's bankrupting us. And it only took him 60 days. What will we be in 4 years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA

How about Ru Paul, give him a chance.

She has been making a comeback. You go girl. :btu:

Huh? The President of the United STates is comparing the salaries of New York, Boston and San Francisco and saying, well you shold see what the make in ARKANSAS, IOWA and NORTH DAKOTA???????
That because MORON, the people who can do the job and get paid more money MOVE OUT OF AKANSAS, IOWA and NORTH DAKOTA!!! The market drives salaries. Whats the cost of living in Manhattan vs. ANYWHERE in North Dakota? I dont think I ever heard a more ignorant comment by a presidnet in my life.
Good lord, have you hit the bottle already this morning?

Obama is simply stating that a big reason for the populist rage is precisely because the economies of scale on pay are so different.

People leave Iowa not necessarily to make more money, but because if you want to work in finance there are very few jobs to begin with.

It's like you're not even thinking about this stuff before you post it.

-spence

No wheaties were eaten at Jimmie's this morning.

Good lord, have you hit the bottle already this morning?

Obama is simply stating that a big reason for the populist rage is precisely because the economies of scale on pay are so different.

People leave Iowa not necessarily to make more money, but because if you want to work in finance there are very few jobs to begin with.

It's like you're not even thinking about this stuff before you post it.

-spence


Spence, you're getting to the point of not even warranting a reply.
Yep, Obamas is right, them there city slickers should get out in the countree and see howz us simple folks live! I reckon 75 thousands dollars would be me one of them big ole screen teevees, I reckon. Good thing I got mee guns and mee religion to cling too, yes suh!

No wheaties were eaten at Jimmie's this morning.

You should never drink on an empty stomach.

-spence

Spence, you're getting to the point of not even warranting a reply.
Yep, Obamas is right, them there city slickers should get out in the countree and see howz us simple folks live! I reckon 75 thousands dollars would be me one of them big ole screen teevees, I reckon. Good thing I got mee guns and mee religion to cling too, yes suh!

Wow, that brings up memories growing up in Iowa.

My father (who designed one of the first avionics computers before he became an aerospace executive) used to come home from work and count my teeth. If I didn't loose more than one that day I got to keep my rock candy from the pharmacy we'd visit once a month.

Even highly skilled white collar jobs in some states don't earn a lot of money. When I started out of college in 1994 I was doing 3D computer animation for very profitable litigation cases and earned $20,000 a year. Even today $75 grand with a low cost of living is a lot of money and more than most people in the Mid-west outside of cities earn. When you live in Manhatten there is so much money around you the notion of earning millions, or tens of millions seems commonplace.

In Iowa, it's like you're on another planet.

-spence

nice try,
notice Obama puts the burden on the people in NYC , why not EDUCATE the public? Why not explain the high demand for these professionals, the milions of workers in these industry that had nothing to do with the crisis, the millions of workers that are managing pension funds and humanity funds so that your grandparents get monthly pay? The thousnads of technology workers that are leading the world in development of client service.
See Spence, he cant do that, he cant highlight successful people, then his base will say "Hey, you mean I still have to work to be succesful under Obama"?
He cant be seen siding with "The MAn"
Everything he has done since taking office is to SCREW hard working people who get paid well.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

This is the FUTURE of America, this is what Obama is celebrating and supporting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY84fF2hzhY

Jim, you really need to relax and come to grips of the fact that you are now a tax slave.

nice try,
notice Obama puts the burden on the people in NYC , why not EDUCATE the public? Why not explain the high demand for these professionals, the milions of workers in these industry that had nothing to do with the crisis, the millions of workers that are managing pension funds and humanity funds so that your grandparents get monthly pay?
Because that wasn't the context of the comment.

See Spence, he cant do that, he cant highlight successful people, then his base will say "Hey, you mean I still have to work to be succesful under Obama"?
He cant be seen siding with "The MAn"
Everything he has done since taking office is to SCREW hard working people who get paid well.
That's not the point.

The comments you posted were comparing the average Joe in the Midwest to the top people earing hugh salaries in the financial industry, the people who are making millions regardless if they're successful or not and having the taxpayer (i.e. the average Joe in the Midwest) bail them out, and about Obama (being president) having to reconcile the situation.

What exactly has Obama done to screw people that get paid well? Let's see, he's decided not to extend some of Bush's tax cuts that are set to expire next year. Hmmm, were these people getting screwed under Clinton, because as I remember they seemed to be doing quite well.

-spence

In some people's opinion, not extending tax cuts is no different than saying you're going to raise tax cuts. While I disagree with this idea, there are many delusional folks who don't get the difference.

Bush's tax cuts benefited the wealthy more than the middle-class worker. I disagreed with the tax cuts then and still feel they *helped* (noticed I didn't say "caused") put us into the situation we are in today. The country went to war which bears a massive amount of expense, and at the same time he cut taxes?

Because that wasn't the context of the comment.


That's not the point.

The comments you posted were comparing the average Joe in the Midwest to the top people earing hugh salaries in the financial industry, the people who are making millions regardless if they're successful or not and having the taxpayer (i.e. the average Joe in the Midwest) bail them out, and about Obama (being president) having to reconcile the situation.

What exactly has Obama done to screw people that get paid well? Let's see, he's decided not to extend some of Bush's tax cuts that are set to expire next year. Hmmm, were these people getting screwed under Clinton, because as I remember they seemed to be doing quite well.

-spence

you need to read the question/answer again, your twisting the context.
So today's economy is equivalent to under Clinton?

you need to read the question/answer again, your twisting the context.
So today's economy is equivalent to under Clinton?

The state of the economy has nothing to do with how fair the tax code is to the individual!

-spence

Hmmm, were these people getting screwed under Clinton, because as I remember they seemed to be doing quite well.

-spence

They're not doing so well now are they? Im not sure if you noticed but the retail, auto, travel, airlines, restaurant, housing and stock market are all in the crapper.
How "fair" is it to raise taxes now? Seems contrary to common sense.

In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers. In 2009, for example, Tax Policy Center figures show that after the income-shifting in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined. In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined.

These figures do not include the impact of Obama's proposal to apply Social Security payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000. According to Tax Policy Center estimates, this plan would increase the tax burden of top earners by an additional $40 billion in 2009 alone and more than $629 billion over the next ten years. By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined.
To put the Obama plan in context, it is important to understand how divided America's tax burden already is between a large group of Americans who pay little or nothing and a shrinking group of upper-income taxpayers who shoulder the lion's share of the burden. For example:

In 1999, about 30 million tax filers had no income tax liability after taking advantage of their credits and deductions. By 2006, the number of non-payers had grown to nearly 44 million, one-third of all income tax filers.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2005, the top 20 percent of households paid 86.3 percent of income taxes while the bottom 80 percent paid a collective 13.7 percent of the income tax burden. The top 1 percent of households paid 38.8 percent of income taxes.
Looking at all federal taxes, in 1990, the bottom 80 percent of households paid 42 percent of the tax burden while the top 1 percent of households paid about 16 percent. By 2005, the share of all federal taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent of households had fallen to 31 percent, while the share paid by the wealthiest households had risen to nearly 28 percent.
A recent Tax Foundation study found that in 2004, the nation's tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households.

They're not doing so well now are they? Im not sure if you noticed but the retail, auto, travel, airlines, restaurant, housing and stock market are all in the crapper.
How "fair" is it to raise taxes now? Seems contrary to common sense.

It has nothing to do with fairness, taxes would only be fair if your individual tax contribution was computed based your personal consumption of benefits.

The reality is that taxation is a variable used to manage a system, it's quite impersonal when you think about it.

-spence

It has nothing to do with fairness, taxes would only be fair if your individual tax contribution was computed based your personal consumption of benefits.

The reality is that taxation is a variable used to manage a system, it's quite impersonal when you think about it.

-spence

man are you in denial

man are you in denial

You're not paying attention.

Fairness is a personal thing. I perceive my taxes to be fair or unfair, but the Government couldn't really care less what I think.

-spence

You're not paying attention.

Fairness is a personal thing. I perceive my taxes to be fair or unfair, but the Government couldn't really care less what I think.

-spence

I agree just ask Nancy Peliosia or Coupe Deval or John Kerry or Barney Frank

Since you decided to use the BOLD command....

the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined.
This has been true for quite some time. The top 1% pay nearly 40% of the tax burden alone.

By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined.

According to the numbers at taxpolicycenter.org (yo, I got the site from your own post) the bottom quintile in 2007 had a mean household income of about 12,000 per year. So in other words, these people don't pay taxes anyway.

I have to say that your anger seems to be fueled by partisan hack job hit pieces that can't even stand up to a few minutes with the Google. This article that I'd note you didn't post a link to, is just citing business as usual hoping you'll get a rise out of it.

RIJIMMY, do you really understand anything you're bitching about?

-spence

:lurk:
Posted from my bad azz superhightech iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my bad azz superhightech iPhone/Mobile device

:rotflmao::rotflmao: That's the first time I've seen that one.

Stalinism The term implies an inherently oppressive system of extensive government, employment of extrajudicial punishment(sounds famliar), and political "purging", or elimination of political opponents(fairness doctorine, card check) and it involves a "state using extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator(OBAMA)" to maintain control over the nation's people and to maintain political control for the Party.


Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by "requiring" individuals to subordinate self-interest to the "collective interest" of the nation.

WAKE UP!!!!!

The February 17th, 2009, episode of Jeopardy
Alex Trebek

For $200
"A Marxist stage before communism which is characterized by government control over the economy....

no one even attempted to answer.

Then Alex says, "Ooohhh, what is socialism? We were going for socialism.

we aren't just "slouching toward" we're on a well waxed sled going down a steep hill...hope you wore your helmets, the crash is going to hurt...


The Bank of England and No.10 at war: We can't afford Budget spending spree, Governor tells Brown By Sam Fleming and Benedict Brogan
Last updated at 8:35 AM on 25th March 2009


The Governor of the Bank of England stunned Downing Street yesterday by warning against a giveaway Budget next month.
Mervyn King said public finance deficits were too high for big tax cuts or bumper spending increases on April 22.
The extraordinary warning to Gordon Brown not to blow billions on a second 'fiscal stimulus' came perilously close to breaching the convention that the head of the Bank does not question Government policy.

Mr King's intervention was especially embarrassing for the Prime Minister because it came as he was using a speech to the EU Parliament in Strasbourg to call for 'the biggest fiscal stimulus the world has ever seen'.
The governor's warning underlined mounting concerns - both inside and outside Government circles - about the scale of public borrowing.


I don't know why they just don't print a coupla fresh trillion...that's what we're doing...YES WE CAN!!!!

Spence, you're reached that point. Your responses no longer warrant a response.

Spence, you're reached that point. Your responses no longer warrant a response. and obviously is now the recipient of bad gramatical attacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device-a device provided by team Obama and the socialist society of Amerika

Spence, you're reached that point. Your responses no longer warrant a response.

lovers quarrel....:cheers:

Come on guys make up and fight some more :buds:

Spence, you're reached that point. Your responses no longer warrant a response.

Why can't you respond to my response to your cut and paste? I call out your argument as complete BS stating facts as evidence and it doesn't warrant a response? Are you mad?

Either I'm wrong or I'm right.

Sounds like I may be right.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;676370

Fairness is a personal thing. I perceive my taxes to be fair or unfair, but the Government couldn't really care less what I think.

-spence[/QUOTE]



And therein lies the problem-- Taxation without proper representation.

They're not doing so well now are they? Im not sure if you noticed but the retail, auto, travel, airlines, restaurant, housing and stock market are all in the crapper.
How "fair" is it to raise taxes now? Seems contrary to common sense.

Yet when the economy bounces back and all these industries are making money again you won't want to raise taxes then either. Then it will be; "well, the economy is just getting going again you can't raise taxes now!" Then after things have been good for a while it'll be the same thing. Have you ever said that it would be a good time to raise taxes?

Yet when the economy bounces back and all these industries are making money again you won't want to raise taxes then either. Then it will be; "well, the economy is just getting going again you can't raise taxes now!" Then after things have been good for a while it'll be the same thing. Have you ever said that it would be a good time to raise taxes?

At what point would you say we have paid enough?????

At what point would you say we have paid enough?????
The flip side of course is how little it not enough?

The tax cut mantra of conservatives gets pretty silly at times. Not all tax cuts are good, if that was the case we'd have zero Government revenues and anarchy would soon ensue.

So Buck, how much are you comfortable paying?

-spence

Here's a "tax fairness" question I like to hear some opinions on. The news today is full of municipal gov. employees either losing their jobs or taking unpaid furloughs due to local budgets in the red. The municpality where I work has already gone through a couple of rounds of cuts and there's really nothing left to cut but people. Residents have never passed a Prop.2 1/2 override yet they still want their public safety, trash pick-up, roads plowed and repaired,small class sizes, etc. Do you feel it's right for a community to "balance the books" on the shoulders of municipal employees rather than have residents "pay their share" for the services they receive with a relatively small RE tax increase.?

Here's a "tax fairness" question I like to hear some opinions on. The news today is full of municipal gov. employees either losing their jobs or taking unpaid furloughs due to local budgets in the red. The municpality where I work has already gone through a couple of rounds of cuts and there's really nothing left to cut but people. Residents have never passed a Prop.2 1/2 override yet they still want their public safety, trash pick-up, roads plowed and repaired,small class sizes, etc. Do you feel it's right for a community to "balance the books" on the shoulders of municipal employees rather than have residents "pay their share" for the services they receive with a relatively small RE tax increase.?

It's a difficult question as there are really two issues here.

1) How to address short-term budgetary shortfalls
2) How to address long-term budgetary imbalance

You'd have to question if most communities are really very good at running a business.

-spence

The flip side of course is how little it not enough?

The tax cut mantra of conservatives gets pretty silly at times. Not all tax cuts are good, if that was the case we'd have zero Government revenues and anarchy would soon ensue.

So Buck, how much are you comfortable paying?

-spence

Well lets see: I pay income tax, property tax, I just paid a 5% tax for my sons truck, a 5% tax on most goods I buy, excise tax on boats, cars and trucks. tax on the cell phones, tax on fuel, tax on cable. Fees, fees and more fees on my daughters state college education. Do you want me to go on Spence, or maybe like 50% of my income is enough.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone but you ask if maybe we don't pay enough....

Here's a "tax fairness" question I like to hear some opinions on. The news today is full of municipal gov. employees either losing their jobs or taking unpaid furloughs due to local budgets in the red. The municpality where I work has already gone through a couple of rounds of cuts and there's really nothing left to cut but people. Residents have never passed a Prop.2 1/2 override yet they still want their public safety, trash pick-up, roads plowed and repaired,small class sizes, etc. Do you feel it's right for a community to "balance the books" on the shoulders of municipal employees rather than have residents "pay their share" for the services they receive with a relatively small RE tax increase.?


We have passed several overrides in Mansfield. I was shocked when the last one failed.

the question should not be when have we been taxed to much, the question should be why are we SPENDING too much.

Well lets see: I pay income tax, property tax, I just paid a 5% tax for my sons truck, a 5% tax on most goods I buy, excise tax on boats, cars and trucks. tax on the cell phones, tax on fuel, tax on cable. Fees, fees and more fees on my daughters state college education. Do you want me to go on Spence, or maybe like 50% of my income is enough.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone but you ask if maybe we don't pay enough....

It's funny. Listing off the names of taxes is like listing off the names of all the plays a football team uses - Up the middle, off tackle, toss, sweep, trap, counter, go, post, flank, slant, hook, flat... a lot of the plays are very similar (just like many taxes are very similar in rate) but personnel resource allocation is adjusted (just as specific tax revenues are often allocated for specific purposes - think, gas tax for infrastructure).

You really do adhere to the "FoxNewsChannel School of getting a groundless point across", attempt to overwhelm your opponent with mundane facts then spin and manipulate those "facts" in an attempt to prove a weak point. Then there's also the aspect of never actually answering any question someone asks you but presenting the illusion you did - that must be taught in the advanced class.

the question should not be when have we been taxed to much, the question should be why are we SPENDING too much.

I agree 100%. What need is there for Pelosi's government issued plane to be upgraded just so she can fly to San Francisco non-stop and why aren't there limits on the amount of travel she can do? Why do Congressmen need to travel to Israel to "survey the destruction?"

Well lets see: I pay income tax, property tax, I just paid a 5% tax for my sons truck, a 5% tax on most goods I buy, excise tax on boats, cars and trucks. tax on the cell phones, tax on fuel, tax on cable. Fees, fees and more fees on my daughters state college education. Do you want me to go on Spence, or maybe like 50% of my income is enough.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone but you ask if maybe we don't pay enough....

So you're comfortable paying 50%?

You didn't answer the question.

-spence

It's funny. Listing off the names of taxes is like listing off the names of all the plays a football team uses - Up the middle, off tackle, toss, sweep, trap, counter, go, post, flank, slant, hook, flat... a lot of the plays are very similar (just like many taxes are very similar in rate) but personnel resource allocation is adjusted (just as specific tax revenues are often allocated for specific purposes - think, gas tax for infrastructure).

You really do adhere to the "FoxNewsChannel School of getting a groundless point across", attempt to overwhelm your opponent with mundane facts then spin and manipulate those "facts" in an attempt to prove a weak point. Then there's also the aspect of never actually answering any question someone asks you but presenting the illusion you did - that must be taught in the advanced class.

If you think the gas tax money is only spent on infrastucture then your misinformed. I think like 45% maybe goes there.

So you're comfortable paying 50%?

You didn't answer the question.

-spence

Spence,
Yes, if I thought that we needed 50% to cover the actual cost of what the government needed, then yes I would be OK with 50%.

But, No, I am not ok with 50%.
What I want to know is... are you ok with me spending 50%?

But, No, I am not ok with 50%.
What I want to know is... are you ok with me spending 50%?

Of course he is. I'm sure he'd be ok with you spending 100%.

It's funny. Listing off the names of taxes is like listing off the names of all the plays a football team uses - Up the middle, off tackle, toss, sweep, trap, counter, go, post, flank, slant, hook, flat... a lot of the plays are very similar (just like many taxes are very similar in rate) but personnel resource allocation is adjusted (just as specific tax revenues are often allocated for specific purposes - think, gas tax for infrastructure).

You really do adhere to the "FoxNewsChannel School of getting a groundless point across", attempt to overwhelm your opponent with mundane facts then spin and manipulate those "facts" in an attempt to prove a weak point. Then there's also the aspect of never actually answering any question someone asks you but presenting the illusion you did - that must be taught in the advanced class.

I don't watch Fox News so I don't know about its School or if it does what you say, but the method of overwhelming an opponent with "facts" (whether they are actually facts or not) then moving on, and not answering questions, even actually changing the subject when the questions are too much to the point . . . this method of argument has existed long before Fox News, or its School, existed. Actually, my liberal friends as well as liberal media commentators are quite adept at using the method.

Jim, you really need to relax and come to grips of the fact that you are now a tax slave.

I love that!!! You're right, he has figured out a way to reverse slavery!
Soon enough the light will turn on for the masses, when they too realize that we are all indeed slaves to Obama's tax man. To keep up his proposed spending if (God forbid) he has 8 years of it, he'll have to take 50% of all the wealth in the US in taxes, just to break even.

the method of overwhelming an opponent with "facts" (whether they are actually facts or not) then moving on, and not answering questions, even actually changing the subject when the questions are too much to the point . . . this method of argument has existed long before Fox News, or its School, existed. Actually, my liberal friends as well as liberal media commentators are quite adept at using the method.

http://www.mathewyoung.com/RushLimbaugh.jpg

That's the Definition of "Drive By Media"

All Hail, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin and Savage!!

You are saying that they are not guilty of Drive by media.

if you hail those 4 and especially Savage, it is VERY telling about you there cool beans... new name for your boat... 'Right-wingnut :D:D'

That's the Definition of "Drive By Media"

All Hail, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin and Savage!!
And what's the consistent theme among all of these guys? They all rely on conflict to enrich their sponsors and in turn enrich themselves.

"Drive by media" is nothing more than a strawman catch phrase that Rush uses (quite expertly) to convince you he's right. What nobody pays attention to is that it's just a play on the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism.

-spence

You are saying that they are not guilty of Drive by media.

if you hail those 4 and especially Savage, it is VERY telling about you there cool beans... new name for your boat... 'Right-wingnut :D:D'

I've always been curious about this one, "who are the hero's of liberalism?"

and I concede the point, Savage is a bit out there on a few things....

I've always been curious about this one, "who are the hero's of liberalism?"....
I don't know...FDR seems to be highly regarded.

But the numbers of people who would consider themselves a "liberal" is really very small in this country, perhaps well under 20%.

What's interesting is that typically 50+% of people will consider themselves to be "conservative". Does this mean that there are more conservatives? Not really...everything from evangelicals to libertarians are lumped together as "conservatives" even though they often share few values.

The words liberal and conservative are just ends of a spectrum. To apply them to real people isn't ever going to provide a realistic picture of what one believes.

-spence

and FDR is famous for what? taking a managable recession into a deep depression and dragging it out with huge government programs, and increased government spending. I believe a Reagan type approach in the time of FDR would have kept it a recession and never would have been a great depression.

There is pride in private sector success, which increases productivity. Depending on Uncle Sam to bail us all out, is silly. We need to knuckle down and work harder and if we fail, we get back up, and try again... Each time we fail, we learn and improve ourselves.
Failure is one of the steps we take on the road to success, few hit a home run their first time at bat.

The words liberal and conservative are just ends of a spectrum. To apply them to real people isn't ever going to provide a realistic picture of what one believes.

-spence

Don't tell a Republican that though. To them, a liberal is any person who even slightly disagrees with them.

The word Conservative is a neutral term - neither insulting or complimenting. However, the Republican based has successfully coined the word liberal to be an insult, and as such, they throw it around every chance they can get.

Just watch any commentary on FoxNews, or any post on here by buckman.

The breadth of ignorance does amuse me though.

and FDR is famous for what?
You must have been sleeping through history class. You're not serious are you?

taking a managable recession into a deep depression and dragging it out with huge government programs, and increased government spending. I believe a Reagan type approach in the time of FDR would have kept it a recession and never would have been a great depression.
It's funny how most (not all I agree, but most) have given praise to FDR for his handeling of the Depression for the past 50 years, yet it's not until we have another liberal President and a bad recession that had Reagan been in charge things would have cleaned themselves up right quick!

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

There is pride in private sector success, which increases productivity. Depending on Uncle Sam to bail us all out, is silly. We need to knuckle down and work harder and if we fail, we get back up, and try again... Each time we fail, we learn and improve ourselves.
Failure is one of the steps we take on the road to success, few hit a home run their first time at bat.
There's nothing in this statement that anyone, regardless of party of idiology is going to disagree with.

-spence

And what's the consistent theme among all of these guys? They all rely on conflict to enrich their sponsors and in turn enrich themselves.

"Drive by media" is nothing more than a strawman catch phrase that Rush uses (quite expertly) to convince you he's right. What nobody pays attention to is that it's just a play on the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism.

-spence
THE consistent theme is enriching themselves?? How terrible that one should use one's talent to enrich himself. So how do you feel about the rest of the media who make loads of money? Are they also part of THE consistent theme? Amazing how the most CONSISTENT criticism of the Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. crowd is that their in it for the money. Very little of actual engagement and debate about their IDEAS, which are, actually, their consistent theme.

I believe the old "shoot the messenger" aphorism refers to killing the bearer of BAD news not FALSE news. Rush's "Drive by Media", in his opinion, is full of strawmen, slander, and other untruths.

There's nothing in this statement that anyone, regardless of party of idiology is going to disagree with.

-spence


So why did the Bail Out Bill get passed? Most Americans opposed yet, the All Knowing, All Caring Obama and a Democrat Congress and Senate passed the stupid thing.

When we were already in over our head in debt, we take out a huge loan, so we can make it all better. Kinda like getting 5 new credit cards, because your Sears card is maxed out...

I just get frustrated with the way most in government think. If we ran our household like that, we'd go bankrupt and lose the house and the boat........

Don't tell a Republican that though. To them, a liberal is any person who even slightly disagrees with them.

The word Conservative is a neutral term - neither insulting or complimenting. However, the Republican based has successfully coined the word liberal to be an insult, and as such, they throw it around every chance they can get.

Just watch any commentary on FoxNews, or any post on here by buckman.

The breadth of ignorance does amuse me though.

Is an "extreme conservative" extremely neutral?

Is an "extreme conservative" extremely neutral?

Nope, neither is a true liberal or a conservative or a democrat or a republican.

I don't see your point.

When we were already in over our head in debt, we take out a huge loan, so we can make it all better.
Kinda like getting 5 new credit cards, because your Sears card is maxed out...




Ya, forget about finding ways to cut your budget first, just spend your way out of debt. :rolleyes:

Economics 101.

THE consistent theme is enriching themselves?? How terrible that one should use one's talent to enrich himself.
You're taking my comment out of context. They're enriching themselves through conflict that's often ugly, hateful and at the expense of others.

Their ideas are simply a vehicle. They don't do what they do out of a sense of conservative altruism, they're entertainers for gods sake. It's about ego and dollars first and foremost.

-spence

I just get frustrated with the way most in government think. If we ran our household like that, we'd go bankrupt and lose the house and the boat........
There are plenty of fiscal conservatives in both parties, they are just not very influential or spineless.

-spence

Don't tell a Republican that though. To them, a liberal is any person who even slightly disagrees with them.

.

That is dead wrong, again JD. You liberal you:btu:

You're taking my comment out of context. They're enriching themselves through conflict that's often ugly, hateful and at the expense of others.

Their ideas are simply a vehicle. They don't do what they do out of a sense of conservative altruism, they're entertainers for gods sake. It's about ego and dollars first and foremost.

-spence
Of those that I've listened to, Savage might be the closest to your description. To me, the others, especially Limbaugh, are engaging the "conflict" of ideas. I don't expect the selfessness of altruism to be a factor in such a conflict (debate?). Everything your are and believe should be employed. To me, they seem to take their ideas seriously, and, to me, much of the ideas make sense. Perhaps I'm naive or just lack your intuitive powers to know that their ideas are simply a vehicle and do what they do simply as: "entertainers . . .ego . . .dollars first and foremost." How do you know this, and why is it important? Entertainment makes truth more pallatable, ego is necessary, without the dollars there are no shows. But how does that diminish what they actually say and in what way does it prove that their ideas are not sincere?

BTW, I've seen more ugliness and hatefulness in these threads than heard on Limbaugh.

Of those that I've listened to, Savage might be the closest to your description. To me, the others, especially Limbaugh, are engaging the "conflict" of ideas. I don't expect the selfessness of altruism to be a factor in such a conflict (debate?). Everything your are and believe should be employed.
Good thing we can agree that Savage is a zenophobic hatemonger :humpty:

Personally I don't even find him entertaining, and I like some pretty whack things.

To me, they seem to take their ideas seriously, and, to me, much of the ideas make sense. Perhaps I'm naive or just lack your intuitive powers to know that their ideas are simply a vehicle and do what they do simply as: "entertainers . . .ego . . .dollars first and foremost." How do you know this, and why is it important?
The fact that you recognize you lack my intuitive powers is a good indication that you are not at all naive.

I know this because Rush has nearly said as much himself, that his job is to attract viewers for his sponsors. This is marketing and sales after all and you don't hold premium radio and TV airtime unless you're generating advertisement revenue. This is Beck's appeal, he may in fact be an idiot, but he's a fresh idiot.

It's important because, well, you do the obvious math.

Entertainment makes truth more pallatable, ego is necessary, without the dollars there are no shows. But how does that diminish what they actually say and in what way does it prove that their ideas are not sincere?
No, entertainment makes "it" more entertaining, then we get to debate what the meaning of "it" is :hihi:

I'm not going to argue that everything that comes from a pundit from either side is invalid simply because they have a conflict of interests. In fact, if they didn't stike a resonant chord here or there their messages would have no meaning and they woudn't ever find success.

That being said, they are, in my opinion, more than likely to be contrary simply because it triggers a response that people will pay attention to either because it's A) like candy or B) a train wreck you can't look away from. This supercedes their idiology.

Those that are very successful are able to ride the lightening, inflaming and exacerbating tension to tweak emotion while still providing enough substance (often fed through a little tube) to maintain a sense of validity.

Ultimately it's like a meal that you believe tastes great but has no nutritional value. You've been duped, and the sponsors have their air time.

BTW, I've seen more ugliness and hatefulness in these threads than heard on Limbaugh.
I've listened to Rush extensively for years and don't agree.

-spence

Good thing we can agree that Savage is a zenophobic hatemonger :humpty:

Personally I don't even find him entertaining, and I like some pretty whack things.


The fact that you recognize you lack my intuitive powers is a good indication that you are not at all naive.

I know this because Rush has nearly said as much himself, that his job is to attract viewers for his sponsors. This is marketing and sales after all and you don't hold premium radio and TV airtime unless you're generating advertisement revenue. This is Beck's appeal, he may in fact be an idiot, but he's a fresh idiot.

It's important because, well, you do the obvious math.


No, entertainment makes "it" more entertaining, then we get to debate what the meaning of "it" is :hihi:

I'm not going to argue that everything that comes from a pundit from either side is invalid simply because they have a conflict of interests. In fact, if they didn't stike a resonant chord here or there their messages would have no meaning and they woudn't ever find success.

That being said, they are, in my opinion, more than likely to be contrary simply because it triggers a response that people will pay attention to either because it's A) like candy or B) a train wreck you can't look away from. This supercedes their idiology.

Those that are very successful are able to ride the lightening, inflaming and exacerbating tension to tweak emotion while still providing enough substance (often fed through a little tube) to maintain a sense of validity.

Ultimately it's like a meal that you believe tastes great but has no nutritional value. You've been duped, and the sponsors have their air time.


I've listened to Rush extensively for years and don't agree.

-spence
Thanks for your lengthy, entertaining opinion, spiced with your usual finesse, panache, and cutting (yet still affable) wit. Unfortunately, the length does not make up for the brevity of substance. The closest you come to saying anything relevent is "Rush has nearly said as much himself . . .his job is to attract viewers for his sponsors." NEARLY is not quite close enough. And he did say it was his JOB. Again, doing his job does not, not even nearly, mean he is dishonest. Because he must attract viewers for his sponsor doesn't mean he doesn't fervently believe what he says to attract those viewers. Everybody in the electronic and most in the printed media has the JOB to attract an audience. Not many do it for altruistic reasons. So are they all duping us? So, in your opinion, Rush is merely an entertainer . . . a rather crude one at that. You haven't shown me that for you it is nothing more than opinion. So we can agree to disagree . . . unless you wish to dispute some of his ideas.

Unfortunately, the length does not make up for the brevity of substance. The closest you come to saying anything relevent is "Rush has nearly said as much himself . . .his job is to attract viewers for his sponsors." NEARLY is not quite close enough. And he did say it was his JOB. Again, doing his job does not, not even nearly, mean he is dishonest. Because he must attract viewers for his sponsor doesn't mean he doesn't fervently believe what he says to attract those viewers. Everybody in the electronic and most in the printed media has the JOB to attract an audience. Not many do it for altruistic reasons. So are they all duping us? So, in your opinion, Rush is merely an entertainer . . . a rather crude one at that. You haven't shown me that for you it is nothing more than opinion. So we can agree to disagree . . . unless you wish to dispute some of his ideas.
I don't have the time to write a paper disputing his ideas, he is a demagogue after all...you do agree at least that he's a demagogue don't you?

As for everybody in the media duping us...perhaps to some degree. Even the most objective news is still guilty of highlighting the negative over the positive because is sells better. When we talk about entertainment pundits they're just taking things to the extreme.

What's most disturbing is how these people train the masses to be less objective in their critical thought. The Internet only exacerbates this...and it applies to all sides.

-spence

I don't have the time to write a paper disputing his ideas, he is a demagogue after all...you do agree at least that he's a demagogue don't you?

As for everybody in the media duping us...perhaps to some degree. Even the most objective news is still guilty of highlighting the negative over the positive because is sells better. When we talk about entertainment pundits they're just taking things to the extreme.

What's most disturbing is how these people train the masses to be less objective in their critical thought. The Internet only exacerbates this...and it applies to all sides.

-spence

I'll disagree that he is a demagogue.He's not. I'm not a Rush fan. I used to like listening to him when Clinton was President. I would say that 75% of what he says is right on. Alot of what he says I think that most people would agree with.

Many of those that hate him never listened and only hate him because the Democrats have painted him out to be a hate monger.
What's most disturbing is how these people train the masses to be less objective in their critical thought.

I don't have the time to write a paper disputing his ideas, he is a demagogue after all...you do agree at least that he's a demagogue don't you?

As for everybody in the media duping us...perhaps to some degree. Even the most objective news is still guilty of highlighting the negative over the positive because is sells better. When we talk about entertainment pundits they're just taking things to the extreme.

What's most disturbing is how these people train the masses to be less objective in their critical thought. The Internet only exacerbates this...and it applies to all sides.

-spence

I'd say he is far less of a demagogue than many of our political so-called leaders. The latter, when it comes to moving the masses, are far more prone to appealing to emotions and prejudices than Rush is. Rush, actually, though I doubt you would think so, appeals to reason far more than he does to emotion. If anything, that would be his mantra--reason over emotion. He often berates "liberals" for voting and governing by emotion, that they act with their heart. And he often extolls "conservatives" as acting with reason. Of course, that may all be oversimplistic, for purposes of discourse. What's refreshing about Rush is that he is, as he claims, "equal time." For the longest time, there was so little available in the media that spoke to a large segment of the population on things political--opinions to the, far enough, right of center. Now there are many. I rarely listen to Rush anymore because in his time slot in my area, another "right wing" radio host, Dennis Praegur (I think that's how his name is spelled) is on the air. His motto is "clarity over agreement." I like clear, reasonable, thinking. He is all that. It would be a shame if the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is re-instated. We need voices from all sides of the spectrum in order to fully inform a democratic form of government.

Nope, neither is a true liberal or a conservative or a democrat or a republican.

I don't see your point.

My point is that you had previously used the phrase Extreme Conservatives in a negative context in your Marijuana thread--gratuistously tying them to "law enforcement" and against Marijuana decriminalization, against what you say is their "founding principle" of "less government, less regulation." Does the latter refer to the Founding Fathers and is that really their founding principle? Now, in this thread you claim that Conservative is a neutral term and that Liberal is used by Republicans as an insult. Actually, Conservative IS often used as a pejorative--as in Neo-Con, as in this quote in a major newspaper: "the Bush presidency destroyed the Republican Party and turned Conservative into a pejorative" . . . as in Helen Thomas on George Bush speaking with a disapproving frown "his CONSERVATIVE views on everything" and what else should a reporter be but a Liberal? and implying that conservatives are not thinking or caring people--which is a widely held view of liberals.

But your view, on the other hand, is that Conservative is a neutral term. So, is Extreme Conservative an extremely neutral term, or does it reveal what you really feel about conservatives when you use the word?

My point is that you had previously used the phrase Extreme Conservatives in a negative context in your Marijuana thread--gratuistously tying them to "law enforcement" and against Marijuana decriminalization, against what you say is their "founding principle" of "less government, less regulation." Does the latter refer to the Founding Fathers and is that really their founding principle? Now, in this thread you claim that Conservative is a neutral term and that Liberal is used by Republicans as an insult. Actually, Conservative IS often used as a pejorative--as in Neo-Con, as in this quote in a major newspaper: "the Bush presidency destroyed the Republican Party and turned Conservative into a pejorative" . . . as in Helen Thomas on George Bush speaking with a disapproving frown "his CONSERVATIVE views on everything" and what else should a reporter be but a Liberal? and implying that conservatives are not thinking or caring people--which is a widely held view of liberals.

But your view, on the other hand, is that Conservative is a neutral term. So, is Extreme Conservative an extremely neutral term, or does it reveal what you really feel about conservatives when you use the word?

When I stated "Conservative" is a neutral term, "neutral" was not intended to mean "politically neutral." It was meant to mean, "Neither insulting nor complimenting."

In general political discussion, be it on the news, in the print or watching Congress on CSPAN, the word "liberal" is thrown around by Republicans to mean "Any person that leans even slightly to the left and disagrees with my opinion." Also, because of the context the word "liberal" has been used in for so long, it has taken on a derogatory connotation. On the other hand, use of the word "Conservative" does not take on the same connotation.

When I talk about "Extreme Conservatives," I'm referencing people on the absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum. Of the Law Enforcement Officers that I am friends with or have met, a large percentage of them fit in the "Absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum" category.

None of it has anything to do with the Founding Fathers. It has to do with the Founding Principle of the Republican/Conservative Party - the principle of less government is always better than more regulation.

I do find it a bit silly that you're harping on 6 words that I put in a parenthesis.

But your view, on the other hand, is that Conservative is a neutral term. So, is Extreme Conservative an extremely neutral term, or does it reveal what you really feel about conservatives when you use the word?
No, extreme is often seen as a negative in any political arena and as such is a perfectly acceptable modifier.

People often describe religion in a similar way. There may be no issue with evangelicals, but a fundamentalist evangelical could be seen as a negative.

JohnnyD brings up a good point and one that I've made many times.

The word Liberal is used quite liberally by some to denote a common set of beliefs that most people don't really completely associate with. I've seen numbers that show only about 15% of Americans would even consider themselves a "liberal" while 50% would consider themselves "conservative".

You rarely hear people making generalizations about conservatives all being warmongers for instance, yet if the Liberal label is used the person is assumed to be a pacifistic. Usually there's some modifier put on the conservative, evangelical conservative, isolationist conservative, neo-conservative, libertarian conservative, Goldwater conservative etc... so someone actually know which of the conservative flavors you're really talking about.

Neo-con is another label that applies to a very small number of people, and it's mostly seen as a negative due to the recent policy blunders their leadership helped to create. Otherwise most people wouldn't even know what one was.

To say that neo-con is using conservative as a perjorative isn't really in the same spirit, in that it's just a way to call out liberal values held by someone who pretends to be a conservative, and not placing a negative on what most would consider mainstream conservative values.

It is interesting though how so many who would consider themselves conservatives readily embrace neo-con principals when they think they are conservative principals. Not all conservatives do this of course, but a lot of people I've known have.

It just goes to reinforce the notion that labels only apply to the extremes and most all of us live somewhere in the middle.

-spence

When I stated "Conservative" is a neutral term, "neutral" was not intended to mean "politically neutral." It was meant to mean, "Neither insulting nor complimenting."

In general political discussion, be it on the news, in the print or watching Congress on CSPAN, the word "liberal" is thrown around by Republicans to mean "Any person that leans even slightly to the left and disagrees with my opinion." Also, because of the context the word "liberal" has been used in for so long, it has taken on a derogatory connotation. On the other hand, use of the word "Conservative" does not take on the same connotation.

When I talk about "Extreme Conservatives," I'm referencing people on the absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum. Of the Law Enforcement Officers that I am friends with or have met, a large percentage of them fit in the "Absolute end of the Right-Wing political spectrum" category.

None of it has anything to do with the Founding Fathers. It has to do with the Founding Principle of the Republican/Conservative Party - the principle of less government is always better than more regulation.

I do find it a bit silly that you're harping on 6 words that I put in a parenthesis.

Neither was I speaking about "politcally neutral". I also mean pejorative.

I don't see what is pejorative about saying a liberal is any person that leans to the left (even slightly) and disagrees with my position. It sounds like a personal definition/description of positions from a given point of view. BTW, how do you know what Republicans "mean"? Is that a direct quote from some Republican lexicon or one you made up? And left of what? Would it be derogatory if a Democrat said"a conservative is someone that leans (even slightly) to the right of my position and disagrees with my position? Or would that just be a discription? The idea that Republicans/Conservatives use the word liberal strictly as a pejorative and never as a descriptive, and that, conversely, Democrats/liberals always use the word Conservative as a neutral description and never a pejorative is ridiculous. Conservative has OFTEN been used as a put-down.

And the founding principle of the "Republican/Conservative" party was not "less government is always better than more regulation." The Republican Party was founded in opposition to slavery. The name was supposed to reflect the idea of a Republic dependant on civic virtues and "the people" as opposed to the upper class.

And I "HARP?" not on six words but your demeaning tone when referring to "Republicans/Conservatives" while pretending to be semantically neutral.

Neither was I speaking about "politcally neutral". I also mean pejorative.

I don't see what is pejorative about saying a liberal is any person that leans to the left (even slightly) and disagrees with my position. It sounds like a personal definition/description of positions from a given point of view. BTW, how do you know what Republicans "mean"? Is that a direct quote from some Republican lexicon or one you made up? And left of what? Would it be derogatory if a Democrat said"a conservative is someone that leans (even slightly) to the right of my position and disagrees with my position? Or would that just be a discription? The idea that Republicans/Conservatives use the word liberal strictly as a pejorative and never as a descriptive, and that, conversely, Democrats/liberals always use the word Conservative as a neutral description and never a pejorative is ridiculous. Conservative has OFTEN been used as a put-down.

And the founding principle of the "Republican/Conservative" party was not "less government is always better than more regulation." The Republican Party was founded in opposition to slavery. The name was supposed to reflect the idea of a Republic dependant on civic virtues and "the people" as opposed to the upper class.

And I "HARP?" not on six words but your demeaning tone when referring to "Republicans/Conservatives" while pretending to be semantically neutral.

Very Well Stated.

No, extreme is often seen as a negative in any political arena and as such is a perfectly acceptable modifier.

People often describe religion in a similar way. There may be no issue with evangelicals, but a fundamentalist evangelical could be seen as a negative.

JohnnyD brings up a good point and one that I've made many times.

The word Liberal is used quite liberally by some to denote a common set of beliefs that most people don't really completely associate with. I've seen numbers that show only about 15% of Americans would even consider themselves a "liberal" while 50% would consider themselves "conservative".

You rarely hear people making generalizations about conservatives all being warmongers for instance, yet if the Liberal label is used the person is assumed to be a pacifistic. Usually there's some modifier put on the conservative, evangelical conservative, isolationist conservative, neo-conservative, libertarian conservative, Goldwater conservative etc... so someone actually know which of the conservative flavors you're really talking about.

Neo-con is another label that applies to a very small number of people, and it's mostly seen as a negative due to the recent policy blunders their leadership helped to create. Otherwise most people wouldn't even know what one was.

To say that neo-con is using conservative as a perjorative isn't really in the same spirit, in that it's just a way to call out liberal values held by someone who pretends to be a conservative, and not placing a negative on what most would consider mainstream conservative values.

It is interesting though how so many who would consider themselves conservatives readily embrace neo-con principals when they think they are conservative principals. Not all conservatives do this of course, but a lot of people I've known have.

It just goes to reinforce the notion that labels only apply to the extremes and most all of us live somewhere in the middle.

-spence

Indeed, since Iraq, I've heard many people making generalizations about Conservatives being warmongers, especially when, as Johnny does, using Conservative and Republican interchangeably. Slick trick.

And isn't it amazing that your 5 different qualified conservatives, etc., and Johnny's Extreme Conservatives, are a way to dissect the simple, supposedly "neutral" Conservative into whatever portion of conservatism you don't like and use the Qualified, Modified, Conservative as a pejorative so as to leave the sacred simple Conservative unsullied and still "neutral"? Another slick trick. AND TOTAL NONSENSE. It's all a pejorative use of Conservative and it is as constantly, if not more, used to denigrate Conservatives as Liberal is used to denigrate.

And I "HARP?" not on six words but your demeaning tone when referring to "Republicans/Conservatives" while pretending to be semantically neutral.

I don't have time this moment to answer this fully, but one misconception you have is that I "pretend to be semantically neutral." I hold contempt with both sides of the aisle, just a little more with the right than the left.

Indeed, since Iraq, I've heard many people making generalizations about Conservatives being warmongers, especially when, as Johnny does, using Conservative and Republican interchangeably.
I don't hear this at all. I do hear specific people, or small groups of people (i.e. neo-cons) labeled as such, but never a big group like "conservative". Of course McCain wants to bomb Iran, he's a conservative etc... nope, don't hear it.

And isn't it amazing that your 5 different qualified conservatives, etc., and Johnny's Extreme Conservatives, are a way to dissect the simple, supposedly "neutral" Conservative into whatever portion of conservatism you don't like and use the Qualified, Modified, Conservative as a pejorative so as to leave the sacred simple Conservative unsullied and still "neutral"?

You're just making a circular argument here and are at risk of RIJIMMY's wrath :rotf2:

I wouldn't consider any of the examples of modified conservative to be used in the perjoritive, they are simply descriptions. Now I'm sure to some they could strike a negative emotion, but not among the general public, not usually at least.

-spence

I don't hear this at all. I do hear specific people, or small groups of people (i.e. neo-cons) labeled as such, but never a big group like "conservative". Of course McCain wants to bomb Iran, he's a conservative etc... nope, don't hear it.



You're just making a circular argument here and are at risk of RIJIMMY's wrath :rotf2:

I wouldn't consider any of the examples of modified conservative to be used in the perjoritive, they are simply descriptions. Now I'm sure to some they could strike a negative emotion, but not among the general public, not usually at least.

-spence

The circularity is yours. You're the one who will dissect portions of the "big group like conservative" into its components and say that poking ill at various units is not doing so to the whole . . . Notwithstanding your plea that any examples of your "modified conservative" are "simply descriptions" not pejorative, though, you say " . . . I'm sure to some they could strike negative emotion."

In respect to the unmodified, pure "conservative," how about the long standing accusation that conservatives are "mean spirited?" The Black Community accepts "conservative" as synonomous with "racist." Hispanics, especially illegals, equate "conservative" with xenophobe. For Feminists conservative=sexist. Academia view conservatives as troglodytes, or worse. Anti-war factions see conservatives as war-mongers. Environmentalists view conservatives as enablers of planetary pollution and climate destroyers. Do Dems throw "conservative" around like Repubs do "liberal?" Maybe not quite, but they don't have to. Each special "liberal" group can wink and nod at what they really feel about conservatives. I may be wrong, again, not having your intuitive power, but I think that most people would be surprised to hear that "conservative" is a neutral term.

As far as your not "at all" hearing something, that might be more indicative of how tight your ear muffs are than what is buzzing all around you.