America - The Official Thread

[MrktMkr1986]

Okay, now I'm starting to worry about you. You seem to be losing it. Please explain the "liberal bias" in each one of those stories. What in God's holy name are you talking about???

I'd like to know too.

Well, it's obvously much easier to ask for ahndouts then come up with new products/services.

True.

Representatives of Loews Entertainment Cineplex, AMC Entertainment and Regal Entertainment Group, three of the largest chains, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Email and phone messages left Friday were not returned by the others. In addition to Loews, AMC and Regal, the deal was agreed to by Carmike Cinemas, Clearview Cinemas, Dipson Theatres, National Amusements and Zurich Cinemas.

This could be interpreted as a liberally-biased article -- it's not. If corporations do not respond to requests for comments, that's their fault. Doesn't make the article liberal or conservative.

The former Sept. 11 commission gave dismal grades Monday to the federal government's efforts to shore up national security and prevent another terror attack on the United States.

How does criticizing the government make this article liberal?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/05/international/europe/05cnd-gays.html << liberal, won't deny that

On Oct. 10, Stinger Systems announced it was beginning to sell its own stun gun to law-enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The Florida-based company claims its device has a lower level of electrical output, making it safer but just as effective.

Pro-corporate...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177654,00.html << liberal, won't deny that

 

[Danoff]

Ok Brian, I'll go through each one (except the ones you're on board with). So the score is

CNN Article: Disputed
ABC Article: Disputed
NY Times1: Can't be disputed (didn't claim bias)
NY Times2: Liberal
CBS: Disputed
FOX: Liberal

Ok.

Check the difference between our unbiased NY Times 1 article and the corresponding ABC article and tell me if you see the liberal bias in the ABC version as compared to the litmus NY Times 1 article.

If so we can focus only on the CBS and CNN articles.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok Brian, I'll go through each one (except the ones you're on board with). So the score is

CNN Article: Disputed
ABC Article: Disputed
NY Times1: Can't be disputed (didn't claim bias)
NY Times2: Liberal
CBS: Disputed
FOX: Liberal

Ok.

Check the difference between our unbiased NY Times 1 article and the corresponding ABC article and tell me if you see the liberal bias in the ABC version as compared to the litmus NY Times 1 article.

If so we can focus only on the CBS and CNN articles.

Found it... I missed the page:

The panel's 567-page final report, which became a national best seller, did not blame Bush or former President Clinton for missteps contributing to the attacks but did say they failed to make anti-terrorism a higher priority.

The author is implying that Bush and Clinton are responsible for contributing to the attacks. << liberal"ish"

On to CBS & CNN...

*edit*

One could argue that because the liberally-biased comment is on a third (easily overlooked page), conservatives are "censoring" the media.

 

[Danoff]

Ok about the CNN article.

It's a liberal PC movement - to include handicapped facilities in movie theaters for people who have trouble hearing or seeing. So automatically you're talking about a liberal movement, which isn't biased in and of itself. But look at the quotes. All in support of government pressure to force these theaters to cater to the handicapped. In fact, I challenge you to find one negative thing about the theaters who are being pressured to change anywhere in the article. Any mention of cost? No. Any mention of opposition? Not a chance.

Balanced? No way.

Ok CBS

Yuck. The tazer article is written so badly that it's hard to figure out where it was intended to go. This article should be a legal analysis of the case, but it diverges from that on many many fronts. Here's one divergence

"In fact, earlier this month, Taser announced that use of its stun gun had saved an estimated 9,000 lives because police did not have to reach for a gun. "

Never does the article state the actual law or basis of law regarding the lawsuit that this article is about. Instead the auther prefers to talk about the merits of tazers saving lives and the flaws about how they could be better at not hurting people.

"They were initially well received by police departments that were looking for ways to reduce the number of fatal shootings by officers. Some indeed began to see dramatic declines after introducing the stun guns."

Here's another place where we see some information not necessarily relevant to the lawsuit crop up. But if we're going to talk about this, can we talk about additional risk to officers induced by tazers? No way.

The article framed a political discussion about the safety or lack of safety of tazers when it was claiming to be about a lawsuit. Then, it didn't cover the political discussion that it set up from all sides.

Very poorly written, hard to nail down article that I'm wishing I hadn't listed, because I didn't want to go back through it. We know almost nothing about the suit (basis in law, etc.) and almost nothing about the general safety of tazers or alternatives. But we do get the hint that the author thinks they're better than guns.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok about the CNN article.

It's a liberal PC movement - to include handicapped facilities in movie theaters for people who have trouble hearing or seeing.

Nothing wrong with being politcally correct -- it's a positive consequence of social progress.

So automatically you're talking about a liberal movement, which isn't biased in and of itself. But look at the quotes. All in support of government pressure to force these theaters to cater to the handicapped. In fact, I challenge you to find one negative thing about the theaters who are being pressured to change anywhere in the article. Any mention of cost? No. Any mention of opposition? Not a chance.

I disagree. The corporations had the opportunity to comment -- to voice their opinions on the subject. To inform the public of cost, opposition etc. they didn't, that's their fault.

Representatives of Loews Entertainment Cineplex, AMC Entertainment and Regal Entertainment Group, three of the largest chains, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Email and phone messages left Friday were not returned by the others. In addition to Loews, AMC and Regal, the deal was agreed to by Carmike Cinemas, Clearview Cinemas, Dipson Theatres, National Amusements and Zurich Cinemas.

Apparently they tried to include the opposition in the discussion but they declined to comment. That does not make the article liberally-biased. They made the effort, the companies declined.

Balanced? No way.

I'd say yes. They made the effort to include the opposition, but they were ignored. Entirely their fault.

Ok CBS

Yuck. The tazer article is written so badly that it's hard to figure out where it was intended to go. This article should be a legal analysis of the case, but it diverges from that on many many fronts. Here's one divergence

"In fact, earlier this month, Taser announced that use of its stun gun had saved an estimated 9,000 lives because police did not have to reach for a gun. "

Never does the article state the actual law or basis of law regarding the lawsuit that this article is about. Instead the auther prefers to talk about the merits of tazers saving lives and the flaws about how they could be better at not hurting people.

"They were initially well received by police departments that were looking for ways to reduce the number of fatal shootings by officers. Some indeed began to see dramatic declines after introducing the stun guns."

Here's another place where we see some information not necessarily relevant to the lawsuit crop up. But if we're going to talk about this, can we talk about additional risk to officers induced by tazers? No way.

The article framed a political discussion about the safety or lack of safety of tazers when it was claiming to be about a lawsuit. Then, it didn't cover the political discussion that it set up from all sides.

Very poorly written, hard to nail down article that I'm wishing I hadn't listed, because I didn't want to go back through it. We know almost nothing about the suit (basis in law, etc.) and almost nothing about the general safety of tazers or alternatives. But we do get the hint that the author thinks they're better than guns.

Look at the source: Christian Science Monitor... not saying there's anything wrong with that... but that explains why you didn't like the way the article was written.

"In fact, earlier this month, Taser announced that use of its stun gun had saved an estimated 9,000 lives because police did not have to reach for a gun. "

Pro-corporate quote...

Never does the article state the actual law or basis of law regarding the lawsuit that this article is about. Instead the auther prefers to talk about the merits of tazers saving lives and the flaws about how they could be better at not hurting people.

I agree. Again, I refer you the source.

The article framed a political discussion about the safety or lack of safety of tazers when it was claiming to be about a lawsuit. Then, it didn't cover the political discussion that it set up from all sides.

I agree. However, this is not evidence of liberal bias. Again, (rather annoyingly I apologize): look at the source.

But we do get the hint that the author thinks they're better than guns.

True.

On Oct. 10, Stinger Systems announced it was beginning to sell its own stun gun to law-enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The Florida-based company claims its device has a lower level of electrical output, making it safer but just as effective.

Pro-corporate quote...

 

[Danoff]

I'd say yes. They made the effort to include the opposition, but they were ignored. Entirely their fault.

Sure. They could have asked the theaters that WERE cooperating what the costs were. They could have done a lot. I don't think you can simply brush this off as "they couldn't get a quote". If they can't get both sides of the story, perhaps they shouldn't run it.

Look at the source: Christian Science Monitor... not saying there's anything wrong with that... but that explains why you didn't like the way the article was written.

What does that have to do with anything. The article is posted on CBS's technology news section.

Pro-corporate quote...


Pro-corporate quote...

A quote that puts a corporation in a favorable light is not necessarily coservative. It could very easily be an example of liberal bias.

Here's an example that would be pro-corporate liberal bias.

"Corporation X is helping to clean up the pollution caused by legislation passed by president bush and his cronies in congress."

That would be a positive statement about a corporation with liberal bias. So I'm in disagreement with every reason you've put forth that these articles were not biased liberally.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Sure. They could have asked the theaters that WERE cooperating what the costs were. They could have done a lot. I don't think you can simply brush this off as "they couldn't get a quote". If they can't get both sides of the story, perhaps they shouldn't run it.

That's censorship. Not that that doesn't go on already in the media.

What does that have to do with anything. The article is posted on CBS's technology news section.

Perhaps the source had an impact on the way the article was written, the framing of the quotes etc.

A quote that puts a corporation in a favorable light is not necessarily coservative. It could very easily be an example of liberal bias.

Here's an example that would be pro-corporate liberal bias.

"Corporation X is helping to clean up the pollution caused by legislation passed by president bush and his cronies in congress."

That would be a positive statement about a corporation with liberal bias. So I'm in disagreement with every reason you've put forth that these articles were not biased liberally.

I'll agree with that... but that was not the case with this article. It was pro-corporate without any hint of liberal bias in the quotes:

"In fact, earlier this month, Taser announced that use of its stun gun had saved an estimated 9,000 lives because police did not have to reach for a gun. "

On Oct. 10, Stinger Systems announced it was beginning to sell its own stun gun to law-enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The Florida-based company claims its device has a lower level of electrical output, making it safer but just as effective.

In fact, Taser and Stinger Systems should thank the person who wrote this article for giving them free advertising.

 

[Diego440]

doesn't the "non-lethality" of the Taser make it more prone to be abused by police officers?

I speak out of experience in inhaling tear gas and I've seen riot police shooting rubber bullets and plastic pellets at point blank... the effects are really painful and if shot in the wrong spot (i.e. the face), could be just as lethal.

...

Oh, that's off-topic.... I misread the quote and thought the topic had moved that way... Brian, those kinds of articles are what's called "press notes", which are articles that advertise a specific product or service, and they are the lowest, cheapest form of advertising... I wrote a few when I was an intern Taser and/or Stinger Systems composed the article and had it inserted in the news section.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Oh, that's off-topic.... I misread the quote and thought the topic had moved that way... Brian, those kinds of articles are what's called "press notes", which are articles that advertise a specific product or service, and they are the lowest, cheapest form of advertising... I wrote a few when I was an intern Taser and/or Stinger Systems composed the article and had it inserted in the news section.

Very interesting... thank you for that!

No wonder Dan didn't like the article; but this confirms it...it's pro-corporate.

 

[fasj6418]

I don't joke about things like this.



Very interesting, thanks! I will add these to my favorites.



Mediaresearch.org is a conservative website. Nothing wrong with that... just an observation.

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/ << if you want something moderate

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1016-06.htm << if you want left-of-center

http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/L-liberalmedia.htm << another site... left-of-center

...and...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/MediaControl_excerpts.html << far left... 👍



Be careful what you wish for.

all great and interesting links, thanks for that. 👍
as a journalist, that is very interesting

 

[Duke]

Nothing wrong with being politcally correct -- it's a positive consequence of social progress.

Sometimes, yes. Always? Not on your tintype.

I disagree. The corporations had the opportunity to comment -- to voice their opinions on the subject. To inform the public of cost, opposition etc. they didn't, that's their fault.

It's their fault that they didn't provide fodder for you to scream that dollars are worth more to a corporation than handicapped people are? Do you seriously think it would be productive for them to mention the cost involved?

Apparently they tried to include the opposition in the discussion but they declined to comment. That does not make the article liberally-biased. They made the effort, the companies declined.

I'd say yes. They made the effort to include the opposition, but they were ignored. Entirely their fault.

See my comment above. Also, perhaps it was clear from the way that they were approached that the reporter was hostile to them, and so they declined to get involved in a situation that could only do them harm and could not do them any good.

But of course, in your crusader's world, corporations are evil and the noble press corps are only championing the public good, so of course my scenario is impossible.

Pro-corporate quote...

Pro-corporate quote...

Anti-corporate propaganda.

 

[ledhed]

I wouldnt be very surprised if the news organizations are not being deliberate in their bias. They seem to target a demographic and pander to it for profit. I wouldnt be surprised if this decision was made after a long study and many focus groups. In the case of FOX I would actually BET my money on it .

News companys are in competition for our cash by the way of our attention.
News companys are corporations with share holders looking for value.
News companys market their produce to try to reach the demographic that will return the greatest amount for the dollar.
Increased market share means increased income .
The News market is saturated so competition is extremely high .

Knowing this what good capitalist would think any different ?
After all its the American way .

 

[Swift]

News companys are in competition for our cash by the way of our attention.
News companys are corporations with share holders looking for value.
News companys market their produce to try to reach the demographic that will return the greatest amount for the dollar.
Increased market share means increased income .
The News market is saturated so competition is extremely high .

Knowing this what good capitalist would think any different ?
After all its the American way .

The only part that makes it tolerable is the one in red. Everything else you said is true, but if it wasn't for the competition, we may never see but one side of any story. OF course, we're getting our fair share of that now.

 

[FoolKiller]

I had to read a lot to catch up.

Mediaresearch.org is a conservative website. Nothing wrong with that... just an observation.

Which is why I only listed articles where they quote the research or statements of others. Plus, it made it quicker than looking up all the individual quotes and studies while at work.

In all honesty if you view the Pew Research website and the Pew Research quoted by Media Research on the How Media Vote article it is all I need to argue a case. It won't be concrete, but then again, everything is point of view anyway.

First off the media tends to have value-based opinions that do not reflect the general public. The media tends to be more liberal. This already creates an opinionated bias that is more liberal than the average American.

Secondly of people in the media that admitted to how they voted it was overwhelmingly Democrat.

Both of these show that the media has a point of view that is more left than the American public, and hence is not reflective of teh society in which they work and live.

Then any honest journalist, researcher, scientist, anyone who has to do research will tell you that the human element will always have an effect. Personal beliefs and opinions can never be kept 100% out of a study or article. I worlk in media research and used to do summarizing of evening news stories. What I always believed were unbiased summaries would come back to me. Anytime we have a project requiring a write up and not quotes you have to have it proofed by someone else to avoid even subconcious bias.



How can you explain that a self professed liberal voting and opinionated media is conservative biased? They wouldn't want to do it on purpose and it wouldn't leak through subconciously. So, unless all the conservatives working in the media are editors it would happen that it would be liberal biased, even if unintentionally.



As for the Taser article and no corporate representation, a good journalist will say that the company did not respond or could not be reached, as was done ins the movie theater article. The Taser article was intentional or bad reporting which should have been caught by an editor.

 

[Danoff]

I'll agree with that... but that was not the case with this article. It was pro-corporate without any hint of liberal bias in the quotes:

In fact, Taser and Stinger Systems should thank the person who wrote this article for giving them free advertising.

The whole article was liberally biased and pro-corporate because the particular company they're supporting is supplying Tazers to keep police officers from using guns - which is a liberal cause.

I knew going into this that I'd have to fight to point out the liberal bias in those stories, if you were capable of seeing liberal bias, you'd see it everywhere. Americans are largely liberal and the news media (wanting to maximize its viewership) is liberal as well.

I've proven that liberal bias can be found on any random day on many of the nation's top news sources (including Fox). Where's your rebuttle to the claim (and evidence) that the media is liberal?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Sometimes, yes. Always? Not on your tintype.

True.

It's their fault that they didn't provide fodder for you to scream that dollars are worth more to a corporation than handicapped people are?

No, but you're right... I would have said that.

Do you seriously think it would be productive for them to mention the cost involved?

No, but they could have said something.

Also, perhaps it was clear from the way that they were approached that the reporter was hostile to them, and so they declined to get involved in a situation that could only do them harm and could not do them any good.

I don't doubt that.

But of course, in your crusader's world, corporations are evil and the noble press corps are only championing the public good, so of course my scenario is impossible.

Not all corporations are evil; not all press are championing the public good. Your scenario is entirely possible.

Anti-corporate propaganda.

Wasn't intentional if it came out that way; just my observation.

The News market is saturated so competition is extremely high .

In 1984, about 50 corporations controlled media outlets. Now we're down to 10 majors. That's not competition; that's the concentration of market power into fewer and fewer corporations.

but if it wasn't for the competition, we may never see but one side of any story.

We need more competition in media.

Secondly of people in the media that admitted to how they voted it was overwhelmingly Democrat.

The democratic party is right-wing too.

How can you explain that a self professed liberal voting and opinionated media is conservative biased?

Easy... the concentration of corporate power (plus more points below).

The Taser article was intentional or bad reporting which should have been caught by an editor.

I agree; but who knows... maybe the editor published it intentionally!

The whole article was liberally biased and pro-corporate because the particular company they're supporting is supplying Tazers to keep police officers from using guns - which is a liberal cause.

OK...

if you were capable of seeing liberal bias

I wouldn't do that.

Americans are largely liberal

True.

Where's your rebuttle to the claim (and evidence) that the media is liberal?

*If the news media are liberal, why were Clinton's meager tax hikes on the rich referred to as "soaking the rich" (I believe you made a thread with the same title) and "class warfare", while Bush's giveaways to the wealthy are referred to as "tax reform"?

*The first two political pundits to appear on national TV every day of the week are both conservatives: Pat Buchanan and Dr. John McLaughlin.

*Rush Limbaugh was the first host ever allowed to use his show to campaign for a presidential candidate... and he has nearly 20 million viewers.

*Conservatives dominate talk radio.

*Most mainstream media outlets are owned by corporations that [collectively] spend billions lobbying congress against liberal policies.

*There are a greater number of conservative and/or libertarian publications as compared to progressive publications.

Plus the material in the links I posted.

 

[FoolKiller]

The democratic party is right-wing too.

What does it take for you to consider something left-wing or liberal? Pure Socialist?

 

[Danoff]

*If the news media are liberal, why were Clinton's meager tax hikes on the rich referred to as "soaking the rich" (I believe you made a thread with the same title) and "class warfare", while Bush's giveaways to the wealthy are referred to as "tax reform"?

The first one was an opinion peice - I could find you some that said the opposite. The other was pure unbiased financial analysis with charts and everything. I don't think yo can claim bias on that one. So the first one doesn't count because opinion articles are admittedly biased, the second one isn't biased at all. I would say that the Bush tax cuts have been largely categorized as a "tax break on the rich".

*The first two political pundits to appear on national TV every day of the week are both conservatives: Pat Buchanan and Dr. John McLaughlin.

I've never watched their shows, but political pundits are not really bias in the media either - unless they're shown disproportionately by a particular news channel.

*Rush Limbaugh was the first host ever allowed to use his show to campaign for a presidential candidate... and he has nearly 20 million viewers.

*Conservatives dominate talk radio.

NPR

*Most mainstream media outlets are owned by corporations that [collectively] spend billions lobbying congress against liberal policies.

That doesn't mean that the news broadcasts that they own are biased (let alone biased in the conservative direction). In fact, this bears almost no relation to the topic at hand.

*There are a greater number of conservative and/or libertarian publications as compared to progressive publications.

Let's talk circulation.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

NPR

Relies more on corporate funding and less from the government than before. "Underwriting spots" are indistinguishable from commercials.

Let's talk circulation.

By all means.

 

[///M-Spec]

Relies more on corporate funding and less from the government than before. "Underwriting spots" are indistinguishable from commercials.

Quick question. Do you work? As in, have a job? (There is a point to this, I promise)


M

 

[Danoff]

Relies more on corporate funding and less from the government than before. "Underwriting spots" are indistinguishable from commercials.

I was just giving an example of heavily liberally biased talk radio.

By all means.

Which papers have the largets circulation? Liberally biased ones or conservative? You pointed out that there are more conservative publications than liberal, but if they're all small who cares?

 

[Duke]

You pointed out that there are more conservative publications than liberal, but if they're all small who cares?

Phear the culture-influencing might wielded by the editors of The Watchtower...

*There are a greater number of conservative and/or libertarian publications as compared to progressive publications.

This is a very telling statement, not that I needed it to figure you out. "Progressive" used this way is every bit as presumptuous and arrogant a word as "pro-life" in its insinuations.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Quick question. Do you work? As in, have a job? (There is a point to this, I promise)


M

Currently, no (though this is the source of much debate within my family), but I've had a few jobs since I was 16.

I was just giving an example of heavily liberally biased talk radio.

I know... I was just making a statement.

Which papers have the largets circulation? Liberally biased ones or conservative? You pointed out that there are more conservative publications than liberal, but if they're all small who cares?

Conservative publications receive a lot of money and are mentioned more often than liberal ones.

Phear the culture-influencing might wielded by the editors of The Watchtower...

...or the Cato Institute... or the Heritage Foundation...

This is a very telling statement, not that I needed it to figure you out. "Progressive" used this way is every bit as presumptuous and arrogant a word as "pro-life" in its insinuations.

You would have preferred I continue to use the word liberal, then?

What does it take for you to consider something left-wing or liberal? Pure Socialist?

Why does everything have to be so black/white?

I wouldn't go any further to the left than the Progressive Caucus.

 

[Duke]

You would have preferred I continue to use the word liberal, then?

Considering the clear implication that I'm regressive, yes, I would prefer you use the word "liberal".

 

[ledhed]

I must just be stagnant then ...

 

[///M-Spec]

Currently, no (though this is the source of much debate within my family), but I've had a few jobs since I was 16.

Okay, but you've held a job in the past, then.

Now. Do you consider yourself an ethical person? Do you always try to "do the right thing"? Do you always try to standup and speakup for what you believe in? Would you continue to 'do right' even if it may have a negative consequence to you personally?

(bear with me, I will get to the point soon)


M

 

[Diego440]

does calling your boss a jerk, in front of the whole department, because you think he is qualify?

 

[FoolKiller]

Currently, no (though this is the source of much debate within my family),

If you don't mind my asking, why is this the source of debate?

Why does everything have to be so black/white?

I know many in the Democratic party that would be offended at being called conservative. Considering that the members of the Democratic party that are in the spotlight tend to side with Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy more than they do Joe Liberman I would think that most of the party is pretty left leaning and far from being conservative. Liberman is only considered moderate in most circles and many Democrats think that he is too conservative.

I don't find everything black and white, but I do think that the Democratic party is fairly liberal.

I was just trying to figure out at what point you considered someone to be liberal since Democrats are apparently conservative from your point of view.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Considering the clear implication that I'm regressive, yes, I would prefer you use the word "liberal".

Whoa!? I wasn't implying that. I apologize if it came out that way...

Okay, but you've held a job in the past, then.

Correct.

Now. Do you consider yourself an ethical person?

Yes.

Do you always try to "do the right thing"?

Yes.

Do you always try to standup and speakup for what you believe in?

Sometimes -- almost rarely, actually.

Would you continue to 'do right' even if it may have a negative consequence to you personally?

Depends on the circumstances; but in general yes I would try to do right.

(bear with me, I will get to the point soon)


M

Not a problem. No rush.

If you don't mind my asking, why is this the source of debate?

One parent is ardently opposed to me working at all until I graduate (summers are the only exception); the other thinks the other one is crazy and that I should at least work part time while I'm in school. There's no consensus -- even among the people that I've worked with in the past. Some say, "work only in the summer and concentrate on school"; others say work weekends etc.

I know many in the Democratic party that would be offended at being called conservative.

I'm sure they would, but the general trend of the party -- not necessarily the constituents -- have been moving to the right.

Considering that the members of the Democratic party that are in the spotlight tend to side with Michael Moore and Ted Kennedy more than they do Joe Liberman I would think that most of the party is pretty left leaning and far from being conservative.

Perhaps... but at the same time, though, NAFTA was passed under the Clinton administration.

Liberman is only considered moderate in most circles and many Democrats think that he is too conservative.

Like me.

I don't find everything black and white, but I do think that the Democratic party is fairly liberal.

Yeah, I know...only joking about that part. Even if the Democratic party is still fairly liberal, it is definitely moving farther to the right on the whole.

I was just trying to figure out at what point you considered someone to be liberal since Democrats are apparently conservative from your point of view.

Not necessarily the individual democrats themselves, but the party.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm

^^ Interesting read if you have the time ^^


<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Socialism Socialistic Capitalism Capitalism Corporatistic Capitalism Corporatism

 

[Duke]

Whoa!? I wasn't implying that. I apologize if it came out that way...

It's not you personally that made that implication; though I appreciate the apology. It's just inherent in the term. The same with "progressive" income tax. By claiming that word as the description of a graduated system, and by claiming it to describe socialist policies, the Left has by implication defined those that disagree as "regressive".