SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TigerPaw who wrote (20357)6/7/2000 11:29:00 AM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
B.S. Only one here talking about conspiracy is you.

It was mostly a rhetorical remark to offset the implication that the elite news outfits are perhaps in a conspiracy of some sort.



To: TigerPaw who wrote (20357)6/7/2000 11:30:00 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
I understand, and, as I said, the soundest academic study alleging bias does not forward a conspiracy theory at all. Since plenty of wealthy people are Democratic, I am not sure how the "more to lose" hypothesis would hold up. I would say that the relevant hypothesis is this: the more marginal changes would affect your life, the more sensitive you are to the nature of the changes. Rich people are sheltered, they can afford to be liberal, if it suits them on other grounds. The middle class is sensitive to tax rates; the small businessman is sensitive to regulation; it is those not wealthy enough to send their children to private schools who fret over secularism and shoddy teaching. The modestly affluent are more reliably Republican than either the wealthy or the relatively poor, who are the nominal beneficiaries of much of liberal largesse. You may laugh over tax abatement that provides a couple of thousand more to a working family, but that may make the difference in getting a new car, or having a family vacation, or making home repairs, or sending one's child to a parochial school.........