Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Dan B. who wrote (755471)	12/2/2006 8:04:26 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

An interesting study was done by John Stossel that showed that conservatives are more generous than liberals, in fact twice as generous, this is despite the fact that liberals claim that conservatives are the stingy ones... a Santa was set up in San Francisco (a liberal city) and in Minneapolis (a conservative city), both Santa's looked the same and were placed in front of a busy downtown area... people in Minneapolis donated twice as much to Santa than did those in San Francisco... this underscores the primary difference between both political groups... the conservatives believe that we are responsible to give when we can and have an opportunity... the liberals will not give because they think it's the government's job to give money to others... en.wikipedia.org GZ

To: Dan B. who wrote (755471)	12/2/2006 11:31:50 AM
From: BEEF JERKEY	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I don't agree that the mainstream media is inherently liberal. As you say "if you don't consider Limbaugh as mainstream, and I'm sure you don't, the media is objectively liberal". The media is liberal only if the viewers center point is skewed right by the likes of Rush. I watch the evening news quite often and I don't see a liberal bias. For instance, to some, calling the Iraqi war a "civil war" is evidence of liberal bias. However some one would have to live in the same denial state as Bush to call it any other thing. Only a Bush apologist or "fart catcher" could still buy into the idea that Iraq is going to be a democratic beacon of liberty and ally in the war on terror for the middle east. It seems only after a lot of consideration of the White House's arguments against it have the news media gone to calling whats happening in Iraq by its real name. Face it the news media have been pretty easy on Bush considering how badly his folly in Iraq is going and how disconnected from reality he seems to be. As a news organization you have to engage in reality based thinking. Its a fundamental responsibility of a free press. Nowadays there is lots of media that skews right wing. Talk radio is predominately right wing and one cannot argue that the likes of Rush aren't blatantly pushing a conservative agenda. The Michele Malkin's and Anne Coulter's of the world are definitely getting their voices heard. To my mind I can't understand how any objective listener can't see the obvious bias in Rush's tirades and reject them as non-informative - buts thats my liberal point of view. Its no wonder that the mainstream media sounds liberal after someone has had their head twisted by the likes of Rush and Coulter but its quite obvious that if you want your news with a right wing agenda attached then thats quite easily accomplished and therefor you cannot say the media is "liberal". Unfortunately today its easy for someone to hide their head in the sand and access only media outlets that appeal to your political bias - so the media is neither "liberal" or "conservative" - its both. If you have a more moderate viewpoint then you are attracted to the mainstream media which is trying to appeal to the largest group and demographic possible. Thats where the mainstream media is - in the center - where they will attract the most viewers. Ratings is what they are slave to - not a liberal political agenda.