Because rich people got rich by giving away their money when they have more of it.

I'll summarize the middle class Democratic voter... (Notice I didn't say poor who are just looking for handouts)

I will vote Democrat to stick it to those Republicans that only care about the rich and the corporations, while ignoring that the Democrats cater to those exact same interests with the addition of taking more of my money so they can cater to the poor as well.

Why does everybody think Libertarians don't care about the poor?

You are giving voters too much credit. It's basically "this party fucked up so I'll vote the other one in". People voted Democrat because the war was a clusterfuck, economy went to shit, incompetence (Katrina), and corruption. Democrats will fuck up a lot of shit and everyone will vote Republican again. And the cycle will continue forever.

Because a lot of people think libertarians don't care about anyone but themselves.

As a teacher who makes around $50K a year, helps poor and disadvantaged kids everyday, and spends part of my summer helping out with local charities (so what if I did it to get in good with a chick I found out it actually was very uplifting ;) ) I don't feel like the federal government needs to waste any more of my money to try and "fix" problems that they end of screwing up even more.

I bet I do a hell of a lot more than the people who vote Democrat and expect the government to do it all for them. And yes I also feel like a lot of the poor and disadvantaged are lazy pieces of shit. But lets keep bombing the shit out of the Afghan poor and disadvantaged (because only Bush's wars killed innocents), lets keep kissing lawyers and unions asses (sadly including a lot of my brethren who are members of the do-nothing NEA) instead of trying to fix health care, lets act like we are taking on the big bad corporations while really being in their pockets. Yes Democrats you really do care more than I do about the “common man”.

And before Democrats start their usual bashing of Republicans (thinking that is what I am) instead of defending themselves. Fuck the Republicans also. They are part of our one party system that accomplishes nothing while continuing to be in cahoots with the Democrats in rapidly expanding the federal government and rapidly decreasing everyone’s civil liberties.

Make fun of the crazy Libertarians all you want. But at the end of the day they are the least likely of the three to fuck me in the ass and take my tax money. Of course this is why they never win elections. Less taxes and government? Why would we want that?

Read the sig again :mad:
|
|
\/

I don't know how to read

Wasn't directed at you but at the "lot of people".

But the anchors on CNN and Fox laugh at the Libertarians, which must mean they aren't a viable party. There is no other explanation. :)

Who is a middle class democratic voter...how did they get dragged into this? I was simply poking fun at the fact that everytime the GOP offers a "solution" (usually not in the form of any concrete bill) it's all about tax breaks for corporations and letting things work out by themselves.

I know you really like to belabor this who evil two party thing and think the government should just fold up and let the people rule themselves, but really that's not the best option. You see, the majority of people are really stupid. Not like blow up the world stupid, but still pretty stupid. I'm not saying the democrats or the republicans have the answer, because these people represent the stupid and love to cater to the rich and/or stupid that help them get re-elected. But this notion that everything can be solved by getting the government out of it is...well...stupid.

Don't you think that if the Libertarians (or a Libertarian) obtained power they wouldn't do everything they could to get re-elected? I'm not so sure it's necessarily a "party" thing but more of a "government" thing. Even Ron Paul, who is I guess some sort of Libertarian against wasteful spending, attaches shit to bills all the time to help his people out. Once you are on the field, you have to play the game. Sad but true.

Not sure how these two sentences go together? Aren't they the government that you speak of?

Ron Paul is a Libertarian who runs as a Republican but not exactly my ideal candidate. I believe I covered him and his "adding" stuff to bills a few pages back so I won't cover it again. My ideal candidate would be someone like Peter Schiff. He has pledged not to run for another term if he gets elected to office and tries to get rid of the waste. Is it possible that the power will get to his head and he will become one of "them"? Sure. But we already know what the current system produces so I am willing to give him a shot. Can't get any worse?

Hell, I actually was somewhat intrigued when Obama got elected. I don't agree with his economic stuff at all but I thought this might be a new era of social change. Less than a year later I have big business ass kissing, bailing out banks, escalating wars, no end to the war on drugs, no change in gay rights, no change in the federal government taking over education... Not sure how this is a change at all?

House version of the healthcare bill passed:

House passes health care reform bill - CNN.com

Now I am wondering what will be changed from that to get the Senate to sign off on it? Is this where they need to get a 60-40 vote to get it to pass? Personally I like the parts of this related to making insurance companies more accountable in regards to the anti trust, price rigging, regional price gouging, and denying coverage for medical history.

The abortion amendment absolutely positively will get stripped out, if not in the senate, then in committee.

Well, thankfully for the Democrats, they can blame everything on the Republicans because so far they have continued the wars, continued to fuck up the economy, haven't done shit about FEMA, and are heavily supported by every major labor union (the Democrats "big business").

They also have nearly full control over the mass media, are shutting out Fox News, and are trying to clamp down on AM Radio. If they accomplish anything this term, it may be the full monopolization of the media to further their agenda without legitimate scrutiny from journalists.

+1000

Yeah, Disney is such a paragon of conservative values :rolleyes:

Looks like the administration is using intimidation behind the scenes to try to further their attempts to alienate Fox News.

Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News -- latimes.com

The 'Looks like' in your intro is troubling in it's matter of factness. An MBBF Fact is different than a rest of the world Fact.

I gotta agree with Flasch - you put quite the spin on that one MBBF.

And I'm pretty sure the White House is free to lean on its employees to appear or not appear on whatever network they want. The employees are under no obligation to appear on Fox.

Had the White House not launched a full-frontal and public attack on Fox News in recent weeks, you comment would be spot-on. However, given the adminstration's attacks with no attempt to hide their motives, your point rings very hollow.

Nate Silver has a post on why this is most likely the bullshit it looks like.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Real Oklahoma Students Ace Citizenship Exam; Strategic Vision Survey Was Likely Fabricated

which point? that they're free to instruct their employees to appear/not appear on whatever networks they want?

That's what parties do though. Take credit for everything good and blame the other side for everything bad. We had people on the right blaming the financial collapse on a small bill passed back in the 70's. They blamed Democrats for 9/11, the first recession, etc.

Ultimately the people stop giving the benefit of the doubt and vote the other party in. I don't think Republicans will win big in 2010, but they will pick up some substantial seats in 2012 and 2014 most likely.

You said they weren't obligated to appear on any network. I'd agree with that. However, they made it obvious that they were attacking the network and trying to minimize its standing. If they just ignored them, you're spot on. But that's not the option they took. They chose confrontation, and it backfired in their face. Now they're attempting to bully people behind the scenes. Not sure why they chose that path either, because it was obvious their tactics would be leaked.

Who gives a shit? It's politics. We didn't see Cheney giving interviews on MSNBC.

+1

Wow...that's awesome

Well, I've heard this argument many times. I just don't buy that the AP, Reuters, CNN, FoxNews, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, and CBS news all lean in the same direction (to the right). It's unbelievable that anyone really believes that. The reality is that the CEO's don't direct the news output as much as the journalists do... And journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing. Now, if you want to argue that there is nothing wrong with that, then I might be willing to buy that argument, but to tell me that AP journalists and NYT journalists are really just right-wingers is not very believable to me.

That's a much different stance than DT is taking. You're admitting that there was intent and that it was politically motivated. That's more than the administration or DT is doing. I have no problem with your stance.

ummm dude...i'm admitting that there was intent. that's why i said they have the right to "suggest" to administration members (who are after all employees) that they don't appear on certain networks

Well, that was their back-up plan only after they hammered for a very ill-conceived initial plan. After that start, they come off looking very petty no matter how they 'suggest' things at this point.

I don't really consider the cable networks "news". They are a far cry from the AP. More of an entertainment/news hybrid that is there to get ratings.

As for other sources, what is the evidence that they have this huge lean? Bush got off scot-free on a lot of shit in his first term. No one really questioned the reasons for war, the evidence behind it, or the plan once it got going. I remember the media going to town on Clinton once the Lewinsky scandal broke. They played the Reverend Wright story into the ground with Obama.

I'd consider news sources more populist than anything. They cover what their audience wants to hear. Sure editorial departments have a lean for each paper, but I still think their news coverage is fairly unbias (in Chicago we have the conservative Tribune and liberal Sun Times). The liberal media bias is no different than the vast right wing conspiracy. Just a way for politicians to try and soften the blow of what they did by smearing the source.

Good to see we're getting back to that non-partisan 'change' that Mr. Obama talked about during the campaign........

Lawmakers Detail Obama’s Pitch - Prescriptions Blog - NYTimes.com

is it teabag or tea-party? i've heard it both ways lately and teabag always makes me think of well...teabagging.

I'm going to assume you mistyped something here. There's no way you can actually believe that Bush got off 'scot-free'.

Thank you Anderson Cooper. :D

Let's be clear. What to cover is "populist". How to cover is "bias".

Don't fuck with Nate Silver

They are often times the same. What you cover about an issue is how you are covering it.Take a look at the homepages of MSNBC and Fox News.

MSNBC has a big piece on how good the DOW is doing and Fort Hood. Fox News has a piece discussing the lone Republican to vote Yes on the health care bill and a heavy focus on the Muslim link to the Fort Hood shootings. None of these are covered with false information, they are just putting a different emphasis on what to report.

The media hardly questioned the Bush Administration on going into Iraq. They took them at their word on everything.

That's a very twisted description of the situation. They weren't lapdogs in any way. They may have been lazy, which is their own fault, but they certainly weren't lapdogs.

But the moment that any evidence came out to the contrary, they were all over it. There was no one asking questions up until that point. Quit making 'duh' statements and acting like they're profound.

More like they were scared. The public was in favor of it and those who questioned the war were called unpatriotic. News sources didn't want to be given that label by questioning the legitimacy of the war.

That makes them lousy journalists. Good journalists get an accurate story, not a popular one. All the more reason to question their journalistic integrity if they're not able to do that.

I do find it amazing how yet another criticism of the current administration has been diverted to an attack on the Bush administration. It seems no one is willing to defend the current administration on its own merits, but so be it.

No one is defending the current administration, just pointing out your hypocrisy.

Can you show me one instance where Obama promised to be non-partisan?