Anyone watching C-SPAN?

[SirFozzie]

That goes both ways. I'm talking about the DailyKosvites and the Freepers all at once.

There seems to be a movement in politics where it's completely black or it's completely white. If you don't drink the Religious Conservative as WELL as Back Bush Kool-Aid, you're a Republican In Name Only.

On the otherside.. If you don't think that america's army should be called away from Iraq in an expeditious schedule, or if you think that Howard Dean isn't the replacement for God with the ten Democratic Commandments on stone tablets, then you're a Democrat in Name Only.

Wish the RINOs and DINOs would govern from the center. seems there's a lot more of us there.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

That goes both ways. I'm talking about the DailyKosvites and the Freepers all at once.

There seems to be a movement in politics where it's completely black or it's completely white. If you don't drink the Religious Conservative as WELL as Back Bush Kool-Aid, you're a Republican In Name Only.

On the otherside.. If you don't think that america's army should be called away from Iraq in an expeditious schedule, or if you think that Howard Dean isn't the replacement for God with the ten Democratic Commandments on stone tablets, then you're a Democrat in Name Only.

Wish the RINOs and DINOs would govern from the center. seems there's a lot more of us there.

We all know there are two sides to every political argument/debate. Well, except for 'journalists'.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

HA , a quick search of your posts in political threads says everything,....at least youre consistent. - Dutch

Well, I am biased! How do you think I'm so good at recognizing it?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So let me see if I have this straight. Flere and Mr Bigglesworth say that ABC, CBS, and NBC are unbiased. Do I have that much right?

You mean Flasch surely as I didn't say anything on that front.

On this, I actually agree with Karl Rove:

"I'm not sure I've talked about the liberal media," Rove said when a student inquired -- a decision he said he made "consciously." The press is generally liberal, he argued, but "I think it's less liberal than it is oppositional."

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Don't forget that when you cite the Washington Times you are pulling info from a paper owned by a man that hates freedom and wants democracy replaced with a one-world messiah-king. And just for good measure he also has given sizable money to the N. Koreans and the Dept. of Defense believes he helped them obtain submarines from the Russians. Oh yeah, he was also crowned in a ceremony in the Senate office building by members of the US House.

That source isn't credible.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm a little bit suspicious of the 'recruiting problems' stories we keep hearing about. I saw a story a month or so back saying that the armed forces have already exceeded their RETENTION goals for the year, and I know about 1/2 dozen recruiters around the country - all of them have told me the stories are overblown.

Really reading through what's been written on the issue, it seems the following conclusions can be made (and bear in mind, this is mostly about the Army, a little about the Marines, and not relevant to Air Force & Navy):

1. National Guard & Reserve recruiting is dead in the water. There are two reasons for this. First, both components rely on recruiting techniques that do not stress overseas deployment. The prospect of actually being sent to Iraq, plus the stories coming out of the Guard (insufficient training, poor equipment, etc...) have deadened recruiting. Second, see #2:

2. Retention is doing fine. In fact, for fiscal year 2004, Army retention was 107%. This is due in a large part to record re-enlistment bonuses. This, however is a double-edged sword. On one hand you keep experienced soldiers in the Active Army. On the other hand, the Guard & Reserves depend, in a large part, on "retiring" Active Duty soldiers to make up their ranks. So retention has also hurt the Reserves & Guard.

3. Things are OK now, but are trending badly for 2006. The Army is missing recruiting targets, but not a lot (though those targets have been changed). Ditto the Marines. But don't believe me on this particular point:

"Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief. "We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for '05 it's going to be tough to meet our goal, but I think we can. I think the telling year for us is going to be '06."

"I anticipate that fiscal year '05 will be very challenging for both active and reserve component recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 17.

The bottom line is that it's probably too early to tell what long-term effect this will have on the Active Army & the Marines. There's certainly been an aging of the force, and a loss of specialists and it remains to be seen if larger and larger re-enlistment bonuses is a workable strategy on a going-forward basis.

However, it's pretty clear that the war has probably dealt a heavy, perhaps mortal, blow to the National Guard and the Reserves. The long-term effect of this, of course, is that the Armed Forces, as a whole, will have less of a "buffer" in the future to call upon for important conflicts.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

No, you didn't even get that much right. The mainstream media is not liberally biased. They have a corporate bias.

Total BS. Most of the journalists who work in the TV and newspaper industry vote Democrat and tend to label themselves either as moderates or liberals.

In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.

When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).

Anyone who thinks an individual's personal beliefs and convictions don't color how that person views news events or how he/she represents those events to others, is simply clueless. Hell, just spend some time on this board and you'll know it to be true.

[Flasch186]

So what youre saying is that because someone holds a belief politically that they cannot be objective when reporting or speaking of the facts...Explain to me again, how one can subscribe to the above referenced study as evidence and then claim that the Administration would not skew their facts or be honest in their reporting. Perhaps theyre simply looking through RNC colored glasses right? Well, wouldnt that lend creedence to the idea that they skew their reports, their facts, their evidence...since you said one cant be both objective and human at the same time.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Total BS. Most of the journalists who work in the TV and newspaper industry vote Democrat and tend to label themselves either as moderates or liberals.

That's like saying, "Most poor people are Democrats, so the entire country is liberally biased". The rich and middle class are Republican, so it evens it out.

In this case, the editors, management, and the owners are very Republican. Your study is factually accurate but completely misleading.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Total BS. Most of the journalists who work in the TV and newspaper industry tend to label themselves as moderates.

Fixed that. Look at your own numbers... You could just as accurately have said most journalists tend to lable themselves as moderate or conservative.

Anyone who thinks an individual's company agenda, management structure, and prospects of career advancement don't color how that person views news events or how he/she represents those events to others, is simply clueless.

Fixed that too...

[SFL Cat]

Most of the editors I know are journalists who have worked their way up the ranks.

While it's probably true that of lot of the people in "management" are MBA types, and thus (according to stereotype) Republicans, they aren't the gatekeepers as far as media content goes. They will be involved in deciding how many people are layed off before Christmas so the company's stock price goes up rather than what's on the front page of the paper or what story will lead off the evening TV news.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Most of the editors I know are journalists who have worked their way up the ranks.

Editors are a higher pay grade. More money = more conservative. They are also closer to management. Closer to management = more conservative. It's like that in every industry.

[Glengoyne]

I think the corporate bias to the media is simply completely laughable. It really holds no water for non conspriacy theorists. I'd agree that the media in general is more oppositional with regard to the Whitehouse than liberal. I think the treatment that Clinton got, blowjob or no blowjob, bears that out.

I do believe there is a liberal bias to the media, but I think it is typically more subtle than the "memogate" incident. I like what Brian Williams, now manning the helm for NBC, said about the subject. He described that he and (some Jewish guy who used to be a Nightline correspondent) used to frequently lunch together in the ninties. They would go over transcripts and print media and often note incidents of bias. The example he gave was something along the lines of "Dogmatic Conservative Gnewt Gingrich and Democrat Ted kennedy...." A label had been applied to Gingrich while none was for Kennedy. There are subtle things like that, that point to a pervaisive bias. The people authoring the stories don't intend it, but their politics are reflected in what they write.

Edit to add that the Some Jewish guy comment..really wasn't meant as derogatory as it sounds when I read it now. I just can't remember the name, but I think it was a Greenberg or GreenStein or somesuch.....So really I should have said some guy who's name I don't remember, but I think he was Jewish.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

There are subtle things like that, that point to a pervaisive bias. The people authoring the stories don't intend it, but their politics are reflected in what they write.

That's probably a fair and reasonable conclusion.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think the corporate bias to the media is simply completely laughable. It really holds no water for non conspriacy theorists. I'd agree that the media in general is more oppositional with regard to the Whitehouse than liberal. I think the treatment that Clinton got, blowjob or no blowjob, bears that out.

I do believe there is a liberal bias to the media, but I think it is typically more subtle than the "memogate" incident. I like what Brian Williams, now manning the helm for NBC, said about the subject. He described that he and (some Jewish guy who used to be a Nightline correspondent) used to frequently lunch together in the ninties. They would go over transcripts and print media and often note incidents of bias. The example he gave was something along the lines of "Dogmatic Conservative Gnewt Gingrich and Democrat Ted kennedy...." A label had been applied to Gingrich while none was for Kennedy. There are subtle things like that, that point to a pervaisive bias. The people authoring the stories don't intend it, but their politics are reflected in what they write.

You see that all off the time, even here at FOFC, where the labels "far right", "extreme right" are used but not their exact (and just as prevalent) counterpart. It's all about opposition and demonizing.

Also, I take issue with the mainstream media during the Clinton years. I read more media coverage back then as oppose to now and while the sensatualism (sp?) was there, there were quite a bit of demonizing the Gingrich congress and holding Clinton up as an embattled warrior. Why do you think Peter Jennings called the 1994 election, "America's temper tantrum". Why would he do that (implying the negative)? Even later when even the NYTimes gave lukewarm support to Clinton for re-election (because of the cloud of scandals), there were far more editorials and commentaries giving him positive support against a "hostile" Congress and treating him with kid gloves so as to go after his enemies. Besides the BJ, the only constant negativity was portraying him as a "waffler". That's very tame stuff. Don't you remember any of that?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

More money = more conservative.

Someone please notify George Soros.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You see that all off the time, even here at FOFC, where the labels "far right", "extreme right" are used but not their exact (and just as prevalent) counterpart. It's all about opposition and demonizing.

Also, I take issue with the mainstream media during the Clinton years. I read more media coverage back then as oppose to now and while the sensatualism (sp?) was there, there were quite a bit of demonizing the Gingrich congress and holding Clinton up as an embattled warrior. Why do you think Peter Jennings called the 1994 election, "America's temper tantrum". Why would he do that (implying the negative)? Even later when even the NYTimes gave lukewarm support to Clinton for re-election (because of the cloud of scandals), there were far more editorials and commentaries giving him positive support against a "hostile" Congress and treating him with kid gloves so as to go after his enemies. Besides the BJ, the only constant negativity was portraying him as a "waffler". That's very tame stuff. Don't you remember any of that?

I do remember the unfair demonization of Gingrich, but I think it was more the Dems in Congress than the media. Certainly the guys writing the editorials for the print media were piling on Gingrich as well, but those guys are only marginally more representative of what I consider the media, than Rush, Hannity, and Franken.

[Buccaneer]

Before the Internet news boom in the late 90s (it took a while before sites started updating in a timely manner), everything was centered around the Big 4 TV news stations and print media. I may underestimate the power of AM radio but I still think the influence of Big Media's editorial and news slants was/is noticeable. I accept it as very little of it spoke to my views but it does get me that it has gone beyond reporting the news to telling us how we should interpret and react to the news. Jennings' editorializing quips really got on my nerves and I have not watched network news since then.

[Flasch186]

right, ratings and Sensationalism dont play into the media. Just ask former Current Affair Anchor, Bill O'Reilly. He won a Peabody right? LOL

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Someone please notify George Soros.

I don't even know what to say, other than I hope you are joking.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think the corporate bias to the media is simply completely laughable. It really holds no water for non conspriacy theorists.

Does GM want to make money? Does Microsoft? Does GE (owner of NBC)?

But Time-Warner doesn't? Thinking that they do is a crazy conspiracy theory? C'mon Blen, you can't really believe that.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't even know what to say, other than I hope you are joking.

You must be an off-the-map leftist to imply that George Soros isn't a leftist.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You see that all off the time, even here at FOFC, where the labels "far right", "extreme right" are used but not their exact (and just as prevalent) counterpart. It's all about opposition and demonizing.

Maybe I missed the point of this, but are you trying to say that "far right" is used as a demonizing label but no one is going around calling anyone "liberal" or "Democrat" or "leftist"?

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Maybe I missed the point of this, but are you trying to say that "far right" is used as a demonizing label but no one is going around calling anyone "liberal" or "Democrat" or "leftist"?

SI

If a day goes by and I don't, at the very least, insinuate that either Giggles, Flere, or Jesse Ewok is a freaking crazy liberal...I haven't spent that day at FOFC. It goes both ways here, but then again we aren't participants in a noble profession where we are attempting to impartially relay facts to the public.

[sterlingice]

Exactly my point- both sides get labels tossed around left and right (pun not intended) here and everywhere. But I'm guessing I misunderstood what Bucc was saying.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

If a day goes by and I don't, at the very least, insinuate that either Giggles, Flere, or Jesse Ewok is a freaking crazy liberal...I haven't spent that day at FOFC. It goes both ways here, but then again we aren't participants in a noble profession where we are attempting to impartially relay facts to the public.

Blen I'm still awaiting your explanation on why the media having a corporate bias is crazy talk.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

You must be an off-the-map leftist to imply that George Soros isn't a leftist.

Oh, it looks like you were serious. Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

[SFL Cat]

We're obviously not communicating, cuz I have no idea WTF a linked Wikipedia site about statistics has to do with George Soros.

[Dutch]

Here's a good example of the AP being biased.

Obama Calls for Troop Reduction in Iraq

Here is Obama's Quote's in full.

"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq," the Illinois Democrat said during a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. "The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces."

Notice how he gets to be quoted in full since the article is about him.

There is one disconnected word where the AP filled in the blanks for us, the readers.

"shameful."

But overall, it's a fair article on what Obama wanted to say.

Here is Lieberman's quotes in another AP article.

Lieberman: U.S. to Finish Iraq Mission

"We cannot let extremists and terrorists, a small number, here in Iraq deprive the 27 million Iraqis of what they want which is a better freer life, safer life for themselves and their children"

and most of this thought process here

"but the cost for America of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic — for America, for the Iraqi people and I believe for the world."

Cool! Thanks for that Lieberman and the AP. That's what I like to see. An article about somebody and they get to speak.

And now the word from the White House.

Officials More Hopeful on Iraq Draw Down

A Defense department spokesman was quoted as saying...

"very positive" w/ the AP filling in the rest.

Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice was quoted as saying...

"very much longer."

Donald Rumsfeld...

"...we'll see the coalition forces being able to pare down and pass over responsibility to Iraqi Security Forces on an orderly basis..."

But enough about whatever the Bush Admin says, let's move on to the non-partisan expert.

Dan Goure with the non-partisan Lexington Institute says...

"With the number of units available, they are coming to the point where they simply were not going to have enough brigades. There is a recognition that the number has to come down because of the stress that was being placed on the force. There is a plan that has been in the works for at least six months with the idea that we possibly could reduce the number of troops."

An article about the Bush Admin with full complete unabridged thoughts reserved only for a non-partisan expert, while the Bush Admin gets the AP's interpreted version. Why didn't the AP do this with Obama or Lieberman? It is my belief that bias like this fuels the disconnect the left feels from this White House and fuels my belief that the media isn't doing it's job fairly or with a sense of purpose towards it's responsability to everybody by presenting all the information all the time.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think the corporate bias to the media is simply completely laughable. It really holds no water for non conspriacy theorists. I'd agree that the media in general is more oppositional with regard to the Whitehouse than liberal. I think the treatment that Clinton got, blowjob or no blowjob, bears that out.

Exactly. Everyone here is acting as if they're conveniently forgotten 1992-2000.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You see that all off the time, even here at FOFC, where the labels "far right", "extreme right" are used but not their exact (and just as prevalent) counterpart. It's all about opposition and demonizing.

I'm sorry, you've never seen the term "wacko lefty" or "moonbat liberal" on FOFC when talking about those of us on the left? You must miss a lot of posts.

[Buccaneer]

I do miss a lot of posts but from what little I've seen, it's talking more about the poster instead of a real politician/activist where the label fits. Problem that I see is that when any one talks about any conservative, it's modified by radical or extreme. Why not do the same for any liberal.

By the way, both labels are a joke because if you look at the broad spectrum, there is no one in politics even coming close to approaching the extremes. For those that are calling any one (Bush, Limbaugh, Moore, Kennedy, etc.) radical or extreme is just being foolishly ignorant. On a scale of 1 - 10, they all fit within 3-7. There are no John Birch disciples elected, just as there are no Earth Firsters.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Here's a good example of the AP being biased.

Obama Calls for Troop Reduction in Iraq

Here is Obama's Quote's in full.



But overall, it's a fair article on what Obama wanted to say.

Here is Lieberman's quotes in another AP article.

Lieberman: U.S. to Finish Iraq Mission



Cool! Thanks for that Lieberman and the AP. That's what I like to see. An article about somebody and they get to speak.

And now the word from the White House.

Officials More Hopeful on Iraq Draw Down







But enough about whatever the Bush Admin says, let's move on to the non-partisan expert.



An article about the Bush Admin with full complete unabridged thoughts reserved only for a non-partisan expert, while the Bush Admin gets the AP's interpreted version. Why didn't the AP do this with Obama or Lieberman? It is my belief that bias like this fuels the disconnect the left feels from this White House and fuels my belief that the media isn't doing it's job fairly or with a sense of purpose towards it's responsability to everybody by presenting all the information all the time.

You take a newspaper quoting in full a Democrat quoting an administration talking point, and that is your liberal bias?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

We're obviously not communicating, cuz I have no idea WTF a linked Wikipedia site about statistics has to do with George Soros.

Because you are saying that more money does not correlate with being more conservative, and to 'prove' this you give George Soros. So either you are being deliberately obtuse or aren't aware of statistics.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You take a newspaper quoting in full a Democrat quoting an administration talking point, and that is your liberal bias?

Stop acting so naive, it's another example. You don't want examples, that's your problem, not mine.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Stop acting so naive, it's another example. You don't want examples, that's your problem, not mine.

Please explain how quoting in full a Democrat quoting an administration talking point is liberal bias.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Because you are saying that more money does not correlate with being more conservative, and to 'prove' this you give George Soros. So either you are being deliberately obtuse or aren't aware of statistics.

The Kennedy clan; Teresa Heinz Kerry; Barbara Streisand; Rob Reiner; Martin Sheen; Nancy Pelosi; Jay Rockefeller; Warren Buffet; Steve Jobs; Ben & Jerry; Bono; Larry David; Noam Chomsky; Susie Tompkins Buell (co-founder of Esprit); Bernard L. Schwartz (of Loral and Chinagate fame); C. Michael Armstrong (former chairman of Comcast); Steve Kirsch (founder of Infoseek); Haim Saban (of Power Rangers fame).....etc., etc.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

The Kennedy clan; Teresa Heinz Kerry; Barbara Streisand; Rob Reiner; Martin Sheen; Nancy Pelosi; Jay Rockefeller; Warren Buffet; Steve Jobs; Ben & Jerry; Bono; Larry David; Noam Chomsky; Susie Tompkins Buell (co-founder of Esprit); Bernard L. Schwartz (of Loral and Chinagate fame); C. Michael Armstrong (former chairman of Comcast); Steve Kirsch (founder of Infoseek); Haim Saban (of Power Rangers fame).....etc., etc.

I think he's talking atatistically and stereotypically, which is derived from a common notion. Might not even be true, although I believe this one is, but the perception still exists so that even the most shallow of knowledge int he political arena might believe this.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think he's talking atatistically and stereotypically, which is derived from a common notion. Might not even be true, although I believe this one is, but the perception still exists so that even the most shallow of knowledge int he political arena might believe this.

Do you also believe that liberals are generally smarter than conservatives, based on that stereotype?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you also believe that liberals are generally smarter than conservatives, based on that stereotype?

I dont, but whether or not the masses do is up to perception and stereotypes. My opinion is that the greatmajority of things fall under opinions and are therefore acceptable as opinions. Its if/when someone is exposed as being criminal/unethical/hypocritical that that opinion can change to fact, for me. For example, I think that Bush and Cheney and Rove SHOULD want the leaker outed. exposed, and out of civil service. A leaker exists, and they should want them out because that leaker is of a unethical fabric. But thats just an example, you can cherry pick examples on both sides of the aisle, Im simply letting you know where i stand.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you also believe that liberals are generally smarter than conservatives, based on that stereotype?

As far as political strategery? Based on recent election results, no.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I dont, but whether or not the masses do is up to perception and stereotypes. My opinion is that the greatmajority of things fall under opinions and are therefore acceptable as opinions. Its if/when someone is exposed as being criminal/unethical/hypocritical that that opinion can change to fact, for me. For example, I think that Bush and Cheney and Rove SHOULD want the leaker outed. exposed, and out of civil service. A leaker exists, and they should want them out because that leaker is of a unethical fabric. But thats just an example, you can cherry pick examples on both sides of the aisle, Im simply letting you know where i stand.

Fair enough, that's why we should always hear boths sides for maximum input and detail. To help the public form a correct opinion based on fact, not on perception. Whenever possible, that is.

[Flasch186]

but most dont....their perception is reality, whether right or wrong.

[MrBigglesworth]

Are Dutch and SFL Cat really arguing that income does not correlate with political orientation? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Are Dutch and SFL Cat really arguing that income does not correlate with political orientation? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

So, if rich people vote for Republicans and I'm running for office, I expect my predecessors to make sure there are plenty of rich voters out there so we can continue to win elections.

[MrBigglesworth]

Vote by Income	All	Gore	Bush	Buchanan	Nader	
Under $15,000	7 %	57 %	37 %	1 %	4 %	
$15-30,000	16 %	54 %	41 %	1 %	3 %	
$30-50,000	24 %	49 %	48 %	0 %	2 %	
$50-75,000	25 %	46 %	51 %	0 %	2 %	
$75-100,000	13 %	45 %	52 %	0 %	2 %	
Over $100,000	15 %	43 %	54 %	0 %	2 % 

VOTE BY INCOME	
	BUSH	
	KERRY
	
Under $15,000 (8%)
36%	
63%	0%	
	
$15-30,000 (15%)
42%	
57%	0%	
	
$30-50,000 (22%)
49%	
50%	0%	
	
$50-75,000 (23%)
56%	
43%	0%	
	
$75-100,000 (14%)
55%	
45%	0%	
	
$100-150,000 (11%)
57%	
42%	1%	
	
$150-200,000 (4%)
58%	
42%	*	
	
$200,000 or More (3%)
63%	
35%	1% 

[Dutch]

VOTE BY INCOME
BUSH
KERRY

Under $15,000 (8%)
36%
63% 0%

$15-30,000 (15%)
42%
57% 0%

Definately looks like you want less people making <$30k a year if you a Republican, eh?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Definately looks like you want less people making <$30k a year if you a Republican, eh?

There is the rub. If you start promoting policies that help those making under 30k, the'll start to vote for you, but you will lose your rich base.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

VOTE BY INCOME
BUSH
KERRY

Under $15,000 (8%)
36%
63% 0%

$15-30,000 (15%)
42%
57% 0%

Definately looks like you want less people making <$30k a year if you a Republican, eh?

and BLAMMO. You just lost all credibility with me. This is known throughout, statistically proven, and consistent in every election that the very wealthy are Republican and the very poor are democratic, with few exceptions.. If you wont accept that than honest, open discussion with you is not only a fruitless endeavour its also an impossibility. Go back to your cave sir.

[Dutch]

Flasch, I have no idea what your BLAMMO is all about.

I didn't disagree with the stats at all. I simply stated that it's in the Republicans best interest to reduce the overall number of poor folks because rich folks vote Republican. And I think they aim towards that goal with privatization vs socialization.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Flasch, I have no idea what your BLAMMO is all about.

I didn't disagree with the stats at all. I simply stated that it's in the Republicans best interest to reduce the overall number of poor folks because rich folks vote Republican. And I think they aim towards that goal with privatization vs socialization.

youve redemmed yourself by not arguing that fact, cool. I thought you just dove off th edeep end.

Ok, but making everyone rich is impossible BUT what is fact is that more wealthy americans vote per capita than do the poor, for a plethora of debatable reasons. Knowing this though, and being able to include a base that involves religion, tax cuts (generally for the wealthy), relaxed requirements for corporations, etc. etc. generally their platform will target a group of people that will vote. Maybe not 100% but comparatively a high number AND its specific and "tight" per se, easy to swallow.

So while not ebing able to make the poor rich what they can do, is divide up the middle. Some will be rich some will be poor, but those that go from middle to rich LIKELY will vote republican thereinafter, not 100% but HEY "How'd we get so rich?" Status quo. Those that go from middle to poor, again not 100%, become so disillusioned or "swamped" by the things on their plate, or depressed that "rocking the vote" isnt on the front burner.

Thats why the gap grows and grows and grows. This is not including a lot of debatable things, like abortion etc. simply sociodynamics.

Ill never forget I once sold a home to a lasy named Nancy Edwards. Bible beatin' republican. We used to debate right in front of her husband and most of the time when she stormed out he would turn to me and say, "You know what...youre right." Anyways, the thing that struck me was when she said (and I think some on here have reiterated this statement) "Youre a democrat now but just wait til you start making some money...then you'll change to be Republican." I thought that that was the most selfish, disingenuous thing about the whole thing. That the morals and ethics didnt matter it was all about the tax bracket and damned be thy neighbor. Anyways...Ive made more money, donate more, try to help out as much as I can and provide for my family and team(Friends family etc) and still a democrat. Ready to pay more taxes to help get us out of this hole we've dug ourselves into

First time in the history of the world a civilization has cut taxes during wartime. That is a wow moment.