Today on Blogcritics
Home » Liberals Want To Vaccinate Against Conservative Plague

Liberals Want To Vaccinate Against Conservative Plague

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

From Foxnews.com:

A new left-wing think tank – the Center for American Progress – unveiled itself Tuesday as the Democratic vaccine to what center supporters say is a plague of conservatism now dominating America.

“We think the debate has been unbalanced in the country,” center president John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton, told Fox News.

The center made its debut sponsoring a conference along with the Century Foundation, which has been around since 1919. Among the headliners was Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark.

The liberals think they’re being persecuted. They believe that nobody is listening to them. Every where we here about conservatism dominating the public’s minds. They attribute this to successful conservatives and conservative news outlets like Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News.

Conservatism is probably the most popular ideology in the United States right now, thanks in part to each of the people and organizations I just mentioned. The amazing thing is, however, that the liberals think the American public is being forced to be conservative. They think that if the liberal message got out we would all instantly change our affiliation. They cast Fox News as some kind of evil monster that invades the minds of the viewing public and forces them to be conservatives.

That sort of thinking is just plane insulting. What they’re saying is that the general public is too stupid to form our own opinions. The liberals think we’re too dumb to change the channel if we don’t agree with what’s on it. Even liberal radio’s new-comer Ed Schultz has talked about conservatism being “crammed down the throats” of the public. Here’s his quote from the Bismarck Tribune:

“The Democrats are getting the tar beat out of them constantly by Limbaugh and Hannity, and they feel they don’t have a platform,” Schultz said. “There’s this conservative mantra that’s being jammed down the throats of the American people, and the other side of the story is not being told.”

How can he say that the other side of the story isn’t being told? Every day we see people like Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy on the television bashing our President. CNN and NBC as well as channels like MTV are all well-known supporters of the liberal cause. How, exactly, is the liberal side of things not getting out?

Also, what’s this about the “conservative mantra” being crammed down our throats? Does it not occur to Mr. Schultz that the reason conservative media is so popular is because people like it? That maybe people listen to Rush Limbaugh, utilize their brains a bit, and then make the conscious decision to like what he’s saying? Anne Coulter writes books because people buy them. Fox News stays in business because people watch. Rush Limbaugh stays on the air because people listen to him. There are no evil plans involved in this equation, people simply agree with conservative ideals. Yet evil plans are exactly what people like Schultz insinuate when they make comments like the one quoted above.

Many liberals have tried to establish themselves in today’s market but none have been able to go the distance. Tavis Smiley on National Public Radio is a definite liberal voice and Alan Colmes was on the radio in New York City long before he was picked up by Fox. Colmes obviously was not successful until being associated with Sean Hannity and Tavis Smiley only stays on the air because of public funding. A great example of the public’s lack of interest in a liberal talk show is Phil Donahue who was fired from MSNBC after his show did poorly.

Those examples prove that the only reason liberals aren’t that popular is that the public just doesn’t choose to tune in.

Powered by

About Rob

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    They think that if the liberal message got out we would all instantly change our affiliation.

    and if the majority of your right-leaning political news is gleaned from sources like fox news, drudge, o’reilly, rush, coulter, etc….you would think that all ‘liberals’ think alike.

    and you would be wrong.

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    I didn’t say all liberals think alike.

    My point in this post is to say that conservatism is not being jammed down anybody’s throat. People make the decision to listen to Rush or read Anne Coulter. The reason liberal’s have failed on radio and television is that people make the decision to not listen to or read them.

    This isn’t rocket science.

  • Eric Olsen

    I don’t think the issue is content so much as style – look how popular Al Franken is. And Tavis doesn’t have a liberal agenda, he has an African-American agenda – period.

  • mike

    Wrong on all counts. A year ago, conservatives said the bestseller lists were dominated by right wingers because liberal ideas weren’t popular. Now the left practically owns the bestseller lists.

    Check any poll. On almost all issues, liberal ideas are more popular, far more popular, than conservative ones. Health care is only one example. 62% of the public, according to a recent ABC News poll, support a single payer health care system.

    The reason conservatives dominate is because the right has oligarchic control of the media and has captured the regulatory agencies. (The print publishing industry is one area where there is more space for leftist ideas, but its power is tiny compared to the other mass media.)

    Since the Democratic Party is also dependent on these financial interests for its power, the popular majority is effectively disempowered. We live under a regime of neglected alternatives, as the political scientist Walter Dean Burnham has pointed out.

    Tom Daschle and Alan Colmes are not “liberals.” They are wussy centrists.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    dat’s right! because when i attend the liberal meetings i’m always asking about Colmes and they always tell me he’s at the wussy centrist meeting.

    ;-)

  • Eric Olsen

    I thought the Illuminati control the media

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    thanks to the hillary care fiasco, we’re 10 years older and one year closer to death.

    the hard left’s disdain for the electorate is ceaselessly amusing. you can creatively frame anything you want, like “we’re pro-health,” to confirm to yourself that The Man is keeping the left down. being pro-health and being pro-pay for it are two different things.

    impotent fox news hatred is silly.

    the poll that matters is called an election.

  • mike

    62 percent, baby: Explicitly for a government-financed health care system. Look it up.

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    From ABC:

    In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

    Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system’s costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation’s health care system, including 54 percent “very” dissatisfied.

    People obviously want cheaper healthcare, but they don’t necessarily care about the way the get it.

    Perhaps if we could break higher education’s dependance on federal grants and loans (democratic policies, I might add) the cost of educating doctors would go down and in the end, prices.

    There are better ways of handling the health care isse then resorting to socialism.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    what exactly does “break higher education’s dependance on federal grants and loans” mean?

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    Year after year colleges raise their rates confident that the federal government will kick in enough grants and loans to cover the majority of students who can’t afford to pay. Thus, tuition prices are out of control and taxpayers are taking it in the shorts.

    Check it out.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    yes, somebody from the cato institute can easily see a conspiracy behind school rates….while ignoring similar situations from the conservative side of things (defense contractors, for example)

  • mike

    Comment 9: What are the “better ways”? For the past fifty years, we’ve been subjected to all sorts of private pay schemes, from general private indemnity to managed care, and all have failed. I say a Canadian, French, Dutch, Swedish, German or Cuban system is preferable. Take your pick. They each have unique features and all are superior to ours. And why is it ok to have restrictions under private health insurance but not under public health insurance, especially since EVERYBODY would be covered under a public plan?

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    Mark:

    We weren’t talking about defense contractors. I am against all industries bilking the federal government and, indirectly, the taxpayers.

    Mike:

    Why in the world would we want to copy any policies from a country like Cuba. That place is so bad people are literally trying to swim across the ocean to get away from it.

    Also, just because a socialized health care system is right for those countries doesn’t mean its right for this one. I, for one, would rather my hospital not be run like the post office. The amount of tax dollars it would take to run a bureaucratic health care system would be astronomical.

    I am not an expert on this issue, but the problem as I perceive it is not with the quality of care but rather with the expense. My socializing healthcare we’d simply be passing that expense onto the tax payers, so we’re paying for it anyway.

    Hospitals need to be stopped from charging $5.00 per aspirin and $30.00 for the use of a pair of scissors (both charges from a recent medical bill that I received). That’s where the problem is and that’s where we can solve it. How? I’m not sure yet. I don’t have all the answers.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    The Leadership Genius of George W. Bush

    I tried to control myself, but have to ask: is that one of those joke books with blank ages?

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    typo: make that “blank pages”

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    industries will stop bilking the government for millions of dollars when those industries cannot get themselves into the hip pockets of our legislators.

    the chance of this happening is pretty much down near zero.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Well done, fellows. The inaccuracies in what Port says have already been pointed out, saving me a lot of typing.

    One of the trends in the blogosphere I had hoped would change is the way it produces parrots. Some ditto head for Limbaugh, Coulter, Free Republic in general, e.t.c., will latch on to the notion that the ‘brilliant’ ideas of those sorts aren’t widely disseminated enough and set up a blog to echo their every word. I do mean echo. There will be next to no evidence of original thought. Instead, one will get the same old you know what served up as if the alleged blogger thought of it. Well, the trend hasn’t ended. Port’s blog is just one more in a long line of Right Wing parrots.

  • Eric Olsen

    Of course the same can be said for all “wings” on the spectrum – the echo chambers are everywhere

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    mac — your intellect is superior to everyone else’s. we get it, ok? you don’t need to remind us how much smarter you are than your opponents EVERY time.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    Chris, not everyone’s. Ninety-something percent of folks for sure, though.

    However, you miss the point. Encouraging bad blogging is a way of helping destroy good blogging, so I don’t do it.

  • Dan

    The Conservative Revolution underway in the few media markets not dominated by leftists, isn’t about popularity of ideology. It’s more about people clueing in on the Liberal con job thats been going on for decades.

    When all major mainstream media outlets are parroting the sloganeering of Liberal politicians with such pabulum as: “Tax cuts for the richest one percent”, it’s easy for gullibles to be misled. People need a Rush Limbaugh etc. to explain that:
    1. The top 1% of wage earners pay 30% of income taxes.
    2. The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of income taxes.
    3. The bottom 38% of wage earners pay NO income taxes.
    4. The Bush tax cuts still screwed the rich because they did not recieve an equitable portion of the cut in proportion to the taxes they pay.

    Of course, this is only one example of the mainstream media bias where only one side is heard. Liberals still totally prevail in Hollywood. The upcoming Reagan biography is an example of extremist liberal perversity taken to a new level.

    As the Conservative Revolution grows and Conservative policies succeed, (anyone notice the 7.2% economic growth for the third quarter?) it’s odd to see Democrats pulling further to the left.

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    Well, I’ve been accused of being inaccurate (I’m not sure how opinions can be inaccurate, but oh well) but at least I’ve gotten a response.

    Hopefully in the future we can all comment in a more civil manner. I’d rather not have every post descend into a war of personal attacks.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    the few media markets not dominated by leftists

    it’s funny how when the media doesn’t have its head firmly planted up the bush administration’s butt, they’re called “leftist”.

    liberals totally prevail in hollywood…oh, boo hoo. the right is always preaching about how the free market is more efficient…if the conservative ideology is so fantastic, why don’t some of ‘em just start up a company to make their own right wing movies…and let the market decide.

    or is that controlled by liberals too?

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    I think he was talking about the media, not hollywood.

    And conservatives did start up their own NEWS channel, its called Fox News and its doing very well.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    no, he was talking about movies, as there was a reference to the new reagan biopic.

    and it’s good to see somebody admit that fox is a conservative channel…instead of all this ‘fair and balanced’ hokum.

  • mike

    “[Cuba] is so bad people are literally trying to swim across the ocean to get away from it.”

    People are also streaming out of Mexico. What economic system are they fleeing?

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    “…and it’s good to see somebody admit that fox is a conservative channel…instead of all this ‘fair and balanced’ hokum.”

    I’d describe the Faux News channel as more “right wing” than “conservative.” They do support the “neoconservatives”, but that’s the group that started as Trotskyists (Irving Kristol and friends), moved to the left wing of the Democratic party, then ended up taking roost in the far right wing of the Republican party (and overwhelming the current administration).

    I find that to be one of the problems with labels – they keep shifting, and never mean what anyone (me included) thinks they mean at any particular moment.

    Except for the “neo-conservatives,” who would be nicely described by a phrase from Eric Ambler:

    “…a sort of seedy imperialist philosophy with a lacing of Fascism behind it all.”

  • JR

    Dan wrote:

    “When all major mainstream media outlets are parroting the sloganeering of Liberal politicians with such pabulum as: ‘Tax cuts for the richest one percent’, it’s easy for gullibles to be misled. People need a Rush Limbaugh etc. to explain that:
    1. The top 1% of wage earners pay 30% of income taxes.
    2. The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of income taxes.
    3. The bottom 38% of wage earners pay NO income taxes.
    4. The Bush tax cuts still screwed the rich because they did not recieve an equitable portion of the cut in proportion to the taxes they pay.”

    Wow, I never realized how unfair taxes were! These statistics tell the WHOLE story. Now I can see how tough it is to be rich; it’s a wonder they can afford to feed their families and send their kids to college what with having to pay for all those deadbeat bottom 38 percenters.

    Now that I FULLY understand the American economic system thanks to these totally meaningful and revealing statistics, I’m going to vote Republican for the rest of my life.

    I thank you, and the Hilton sisters thank you, for pulling the wool from America’s eyes and exposing the brutal persecution of the top 1%.

  • mike

    Thanks for speaking up, JR. Grover Norquist, a Republican strategist, recently compared estate taxes to the Holocaust. I think he’s right. It’s obvious that all liberals are Nazis, and that it’s only a matter of time before the top 1% is herded into concentration camps and gassed. After all, liberals control the media. Only the brave dissidents at Fox News stand between us and the Fourth Reich. I pray it’s not too late.

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    that’s the least of grover norquist’s missteps of late. his alliance with alleged terrorist al-amoudi is quite a bit more distressing than a bogus comparison (i’m glad someone on the left dislikes the frivolous “nazi” references–maybe we won’t see anymore of those idiotic bush=hitler signs–but i doubt it).

    i do find it funny that much of the left seems to think that salvation lies within constantly carping about fox news (the #1 cable news channel — hee hee hee). i didn’t even have fox news until a few weeks ago, yet i don’t toe the leftist line — how did that happen?

    one misleading thing about the tax — EVERYONE pays for FICA and SS. i think an honest discussion of taxes should include those. ss, for instance, screws everyone, but it screws lower income workers the most.

    please, no hilton references. they are awful. the first second i spent pondering them was the first one i cant get back.

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    personally, i don’t care about fox news…they can be as right wing as they’d like.

    what does bother me is the outright hypocrisy of the “We Report You Decide” & “Fair & Balanced” thing.

    heck, even o’reilly says it’s crap.

  • http://www.temptationwaits.com visualsimplicity

    I think it’s silly to say that something “being jammed down the throats of the American people” results in it’s popularity. If this were true, wouldn’t Skins be the new hit show of season?

  • http://mcfrank.blogspot.com Chris Arabia

    i dont know. about all i can say for certain is HIS FATHER IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY!!!!!!!

  • Eric Olsen

    And “HE’S OUT TO DESTROY US.”

    The thing that is refreshing about Fox News is that other than the self-parody of a slogan, they don’t pretend to be anything other than pro-American, pro-Bush, etc. I’d often rather read an editorial than a news story on the same subject.

  • Dan

    Gee fellas, I was only submitting those IRS statistics as an example of something you would never read about in USA Today or hear on mainstream network news. It’s just a point of fact that the richest 1% are getting a smaller tax cut in proportion to the taxes they pay than anyone else. Didn’t say there was any “brutal persecution” going on. I just report, you decide.

    Same goes for the deficit. The only meaningful measure of the deficit is as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. The current “record deficit” the duplicitous liberal media go on about is laughable by historic standards. Only around 4% and shrinking by about 80,000,000,000 with the latest revised growth in GDP.

    The thing I find most shameful about some liberals is when their class envy overcomes even their parasitic inclinations. Even though tax cuts have historically almost always resulted in some economic growth and prosperity for all, they would rather stay miserable then to see rich get richer. Of course it is debateable what degree tax cuts help the economy. But the dominant liberal media will never treat this debate fairly.

    It’s odd how people here, who consider themselves more intelligent than most, would dismiss conservatives as ditto heads or fox news parrots, when their own preferred media outlets treat them as imbeciles by withholding meaningful statistics, and appealing to the most base instincts in them. Tax cuts for the rich indeed.

    Sorry if I seem rude or uncivil, this is just my opinion, you guys are entitled to yours.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Actually, Dan, there’s nothing laughable about the deficit and while stating it as a percentage makes it look smaller, it has a big effect on people’s lives.

    Currently, the deficit is near $7 trillion dollars and it looks like the current administration’s policies are soon going to make that $8 trillion.

    Here’s a fact for real perspective: the interest on the national debt is being paid at $1 billion dollars a day out of tax revenues.

    That’s enough to cover the cost of seven wars like that in Iraq, or to provide full health care for every man, woman and child (legal or illegal) in America with change left over.

    That’s not happening. Instead, about 60% of that $1 billion a day is going to non-government investors.

    Practically speaking, it’s being taken from all taxpayers and being given to the wealthy few who have invested in the debt.

    Personally, I don’t like this type of “income redistribution.”

  • http://www.makeyougohmm.com/ TDavid

    As long as they print the money, they don’t seem to respect it, do they? Compound interest is a powerful beast that works for and against depending on whether one is saving or spending.

    The government is probably the worst run businesses (if one can stop and characterize it as that), from a financial standpoint at least in this country.

    Get rid of that $10,000+ office furniture, fancy marble decor, etc. It’s disturbing the amount of excess waste that goes on every single day in government spending.

    I can see the need for the White House to be somewhat lavish because of entertaining international guests, but the rest of the operation doesn’t need to be luxurious.

    These Washington politicians sit on more money than the average minimum wage worker in this country makes in a year. That’s a travesty.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Your income tax figures are probably right, Dan, but they give a skewed picture because they are for the income tax.

    At the low end of the income scale, the biggest hit is from payroll taxes. The FICA take is a total of 15.3%, split evenly between employer and employee.

    For them, talk of “tax cuts” is just so much political prestidigitation, as income tax cuts will always go to the rich(er) because, as you say, they are the ones paying the taxes. Talk of how tax cuts are going to help the poor and middle classes is just political posturing to a large extent.

    If politicians really wanted to help the poor and middle classes they could easily exempt, say, the first $10,000 of taxable income from the FICA deduction.

    This would give every taxpayer, rich or poor, up to $765. Businesses would also get the same amount for all employees making less than the FICA max .

    Now THAT would give the economy a shot in the arm! And everyone would get a tax break.

    It might be too good a shot for Federal tithes, so perhaps the top end of the range could be extended to recover some of the income. Currently, FICA applies for all taxable income up to about $85,000. This could be changed to apply to taxable income from $10,000 to $100,000 or so.

    Hmm, now that I’ve written this down, I really like it. Unless you folks shoot holes in it, I’m going to send it to my Senators and Representative, too.

  • Dan

    Maybe I should like your idea Hal, because I would be one who would get an extra 765. I think you’d have to extend the taxable range a little higher than 100,000 to make up for the shortfall though. But I have ethical problems with making someone else pay for my retirement set aside. Which is what Social Security is supposed to be about.

    You said: “Actually, Dan, there’s nothing laughable about the deficit and while stating it as a percentage makes it look smaller, it has a big effect on people’s lives.”

    My point was that the only true honest way to state it IS as a percentage of GNP. The deception is to state it as the partisan media does ; in todays dollars as compared to yesterdays dollars without adjustment for inflation, or growth in spending. We’ll have more record deficits 10 years from now, and 10 years later etc.

    When I borrowed $1250 to buy a 1973 Gremlin back in 1978, I only made $2.75 an hour. Today a comparable car might cost 4 times as much, (a new record deficit), but I make 8 times more than I did then (my personal GDP). Going in debt was a good investment for me, because the car allowed me to get to work and make more money. Sometimes I used money I could have used to pay off the Gremlin for frivolous purposes. It didn’t help me prosper but I felt it enhanced my lifestlye.

    When Ronny Reagan blew wads of cash on national security while simultaneously cutting taxes, he was investing. It paid off because the growth in the economy outpaced the growth in the deficit and the national security spending led to the collapse of the USSR which gave us a huge peace dividend in actual defense spending savings that more than make up for the outlays then. Of course liberals in congress continued to spend on frivolous social programs money that could have been used to pay down the debt. But it enhanced a lot of peoples lifestyles.

    I understand liberals altruistic nature and think that some of it is good investing. Pell grants and such. But most of it doesn’t feed the economy. If you want to keep doing it, you need tax receipts to grow. In order to do that ya gotta feed the dog.
    I don’t care if rich people get richer. We all cash out when we die anyhow.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    “Maybe I should like your idea …But I have ethical problems with making someone else pay for my retirement set aside.

    That’s a different issue, and from your standpoint, a better method would be to eliminate the first $10,000 and not raise the upper limit, as that would reduce the amount deducted for Social Security, and come closer to your “ideal” of zero.

    As to specifics, I haven’t run the numbers against the universe of taxpayers. The principle holds even if the “free zone” is lower or the upper limit is higher.

    My point was that the only true honest way to state it IS as a percentage of GNP.

    No, it’s not.

    Whether percentage or actual dollars, the point that it’s a bad idea is still valid. It takes money from every taxpayer and transfers it to a small group of wealthy people.

    The deception is to state it as the partisan media does ; in todays dollars as compared to yesterdays dollars without adjustment for inflation, or growth in spending. We’ll have more record deficits 10 years from now, and 10 years later etc.

    No. The deficit fluctuates up and down in any kind of dollars. Sometimes there’s a surplus, sometimes there’s a deficit. Sometimes it’s a good idea to have one for a while, sometimes its a bad idea.

    My current concern is that it is building the national debt at an extremely fast rate, and that is hurting the economy overall, and the smaller taxpayers in particular. Think what could be done with $350 billion per year, the current amount of interest being paid on the national debt.

    And once the national debt is built up, it has a “stickiness” to it, so the interest will continue to be pulled from the economy long after the contemporary effects of the deficit have passed. It’s like maxing out all your credit cards – it may provide temporary relief, but it catches up to you at some point.

  • Jeff

    No offense but Tavis Smiley isn’t ONLY on the air because of public funding. He also has a popular segment on the Tom Joyner show. And while Smiley is liberal himself his show offers balance. J.C. Watts is a regular contributor to his NPR program and he regularly interviews Republican leaders.

  • http://sayanything.typepad.com Rob

    I cited Smiley as an example of a liberal who has been successful in radio.

  • Don

    “People need a Rush Limbaugh etc. to explain that:
    1. The top 1% of wage earners pay 30% of income taxes.
    2. The top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of income taxes.
    3. The bottom 38% of wage earners pay NO income taxes.
    4. The Bush tax cuts still screwed the rich because they did not recieve an equitable portion of the cut in proportion to the taxes they pay.”

    But people need a liberal to explain that according to Rush’s figures, the median income in the United States is $26,000 (and that’s per HOUSEHOLD). So, according to Rush, if you earn $26,001, you are in the upper 50% of wage earners. (How rich do you feel?)

    Also, if you add up his numbers, you see that 50% of Americans earn only 13.81% of the total income. Why should they pay taxes? They don’t get any money!

    If you look at “taxable income”, not just “gross”, as Limbaugh did, (that includes everyone who filed a return – a teenager with a part time job, a retiree with a few hundred dollars in savings, and anyone who got an unemployment check), you get this: 50% of the population got 95% of the money. They paid 96.4% of the taxes. That’s obviously incredibly unfair. The other 50%, the half of this country that survives on on 5% of total income, paid 3.6% of the taxes. Is this unfair? Or do conservatives think that people who can’t afford food or rent should pay more taxes?

  • Dragracer!

    Whatever, people. Politicians will be politicians no matter what side they’re from. They want money and they want votes, so if it’s not one thing it’s another. And this man who calls himself Don doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Neither do any of you. Neither do I. But it’s people like us who think we’re good at being “fair” about taxes who end up making the rules. Isn’t democracy wonderful?

  • http://www.governmentgrants-guide.com sara

    Thewebsite introduces and sells our E-Book which contains information on United States Government Grants and ways to apply for it.

  • Joy

    Alot of good people are being guilt riddled in churches to vote against their own best interests. Those people and others are listening to TV news in all it’s forms beleiving it as truth, not realizing that they are being propagandized. The truth is Christ was a liberal. He preached looking out for the poor and the sinners and those less fortunate. George said it best in a speech to his rich oil friends in “Texass”. He told them some people say you’re the elite, I call you my base. He and is friends ( the oil rich) probable laugh theirs asses off at the ignorance of those that follow them blindly into the pit. Neoconservatives are Nazis. Whenever you mix government and church you get the puritans or in other countries the Nazi Germany during WWII. Remember your history

  • http://www.PoemsAndReflectionsConstantineIvanov.com Constantine Ivanov

    To all of participants who dislike Republicans:
    Guys, thank you much for your great contribution to the characters set (including topics, way of communication, lexicon, and mentality) perfectly – with photographic precision – reproduced in the Ann Coulter’s book “How to speak to Liberals (If you must)”. Highly recommend: I have now no doubt that without you the book would have no chance to be written. Thanks. Hats off to you!

  • http://www.PoemsAndReflectionsConstantineIvanov.com Constantine Ivanov

    May I ask a naive question?
    Personal attacks are not allowed, the instruction says.
    Ideas we are allowed to “attack” are product of a person, as far as I understand. This Forum is full of individual names of all spectrum.
    If a person promotes – often ardently, like myself, for instance – an idea that is being sharply attacked, is it possible to disjoin an idea and its holder? If it is, than why is it that the name Hitler is used so often? I even would say, unfairly more often than that of Lenin-Stalin…
    If we have to follow the same logic, I’m afraid we have to abandon using names from Herostratus to Brutus Marcus to Marx to Lenin to Clinton, don’t we? Aren’t we slaves of PC-perverted era? Please keep in mind that I am not calling for obscenities and cursing, I am calling to specify the essence of an idea holders. For instance, I created a nice word “Eleuthererasty” from Greek eleutheria freedom + erastOs lover, and I think it is better describing a certain disease with no dirty words.

  • http://easytoassemble.blogspot.com Omega

    Conservatism is simply easier to sell. It persuades people with promises of money and is highly focused on on status. Things like religion and other personal values are allowed to enter the process as well, which tempts people to take on views that may not serve their best interests.

    I don’t think people are getting it jammed down their throats. They just don’t know what’s good for them, and have been sold on the idea that greed helps everyone.

    If people formed a political opinion based on the sum of their best interests, only the rich would consider themselves “conservative”. Right now, there’s a “middle class conservative” disease going around because everybody fancies themselves wealthier than the rest.

  • Cindy D

    Rob,

    My point in this post is to say that conservatism is not being jammed down anybody’s throat. People make the decision to listen to Rush or read Anne Coulter.

    That’s why: What…[we’re]…saying is that [some of] the general public is too stupid to form our…[their]…own opinions.

    Brilliant! I agree!

  • whodunnit

    As the retired CEO of a software company, my observation over forty years in the business world is that those who ‘earn’ millions of dollars, which some construe as ‘wages’, actually didn’t ‘earn’ the money. They got rich by pure luck, stock manipulation, overpricing their products or services, using monopolistic business practices, kickbacks, patronage, trickery, lying, or other practices which ‘honest people’ would tend not to do.

    It doesn’t matter whether one is ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. These labels tend to apply more to social issues than financial matters.

    Basic honesty has to be present for capitalism to prosper for all,