# Are People more Extreme Today



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

It seems like we constantly hear about the extreme people on the left and right in politics. A recent thread about PETA discusses some of the excesses of these idiots. (I am no PETA fan.)

Have we become more extreme today, or do we and the media just give these people more attention than they deserve?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> It seems like we constantly hear about the extreme people on the left and right in politics. A recent thread about PETA discusses some of the excesses of these idiots. (I am no PETA fan.)
> 
> *Have we become more extreme today, or do we and the media just give these people more attention than they deserve?*


I agree. There are far too many extremists given media attention. Hollywood liberals and columnists like Ted Rall on one side and Ann Coulter and the Westboro Baptist Church on the other. Bill O'Reilly's recent comments about the kidnapped Missouri boys also infuriate me. I often wonder if these people actually believe the nonsense they spout, or if they just enjoy the attention from the controversy they stir up.

As far as PETA goes, I do believe there needs to be more attention given to the way animals are treated, however, they go way too far in their beliefs.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Extremism is more shocking and entertaining than moderation. Hence, the media coverage.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I believe there is an ebb and flow to extremism. There are a lot of controversial things going on these days and it just seems to bring out the loonies on all sides. Bill O'Reilly unfortunately contributes to the controversy sometimes, even though he is against extremism. His populist rants can go overboard and, I think, are sometimes calculated.


----------



## pcunite (Nov 20, 2006)

My *world view* is not what the media serves up. I find myself having to interpret what they give me. Of course I could be wrong which slowly gives me the feeling that most things are not believable since everyone thinks he is right. Without an absolute definition of morals, a _what is right and what is wrong_, people will be trapped on a ship lost at sea wandering about...


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Extremism is more shocking and entertaining than moderation. Hence, the media coverage.


Agreed. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al need ratings. Serious discussion of topics does not excite or entertain, but 24 hour coverage of the latest school shooting does bring in ratings. They should all have a disclaimer running at the bottom of the screen warning people that they are in the business of infotainment, not journalistic integrity or the search for deeper menaing bordering on anything resembling the truth.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Have we become more extreme today, or do we and the media just give these people more attention than they deserve?


Regardless of what what one might conclude pertaining to media coverage, we need go no further than many of the posts to threads on "the Interchange" to find a plenitude of examples of extremism and at times, social savagery, expressed by our fellow forumites. As stated in the lyrics of that extraordinarily aggravating "Disney" song, "It's a small world, after all. It's a small, small world!"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

IMO it is simply an extension of our mass produced culture. I have offered as an observation several times here that "more" has replaced "quality" as something to be sought after. People would rather have 20 Van Heusen dress shirts that one MTM or bespoke $250 dress shirt. So instead of intelligent balanced reporting, cultured entertainment, etc., we have "Fear Factor" and the various trashy paparazzi rags. Instead of pushing math and chess clubs, we have 17 y/o's taking steriods for the football team and young girls video-taping themselves assaulting other girls and putting it on the 'Net.

We have become Rome at its most decadent.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

If we have become Rome then it is up to you to play the pipes as we burn!

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> If we have become Rome then it is up to you to play the pipes as we burn!
> 
> Karl


Impressive Karl! Not many people know that Nero is described as playing some form of a bagpipe! And I am more than happy to


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

agnash said:


> Agreed. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al need ratings. Serious discussion of topics does not excite or entertain, but 24 hour coverage of the latest school shooting does bring in ratings. They should all have a disclaimer running at the bottom of the screen warning people that they are in the business of infotainment, not journalistic integrity or the search for deeper menaing bordering on anything resembling the truth.


Certainly I usually take a cynical view of TV coverage as well, but I understand that my opinion is a bit uninformed since I've never worked in TV and have no firsthand knowledge of how they decide to divide up an hour's broadcast. On newspapers, though, we attempt to fill a need. It's a fact that my newspaper's circulation increased during the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but I believe our primary motive was to satisfy a high demand for information. I was working in California during the L.A. riots and stayed up past dawn watching live TV coverage from L.A. stations via cable. I did not at the time consider it to be ratings-driven as much as it was a public service, considering most Southern Californians at 3 a.m. were either asleep, running for their lives or out looting stores.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Hollywood blamed for so much of this used to be a much different place. Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart were next door nieghbors and lifelong friends. Fonda was of course a liberal democrat and Stewart a republican. Jane was once asked what they talked about. It seems they shared a passion for model airplanes and would sit outside building the things for relaxation together. As Jane recalled a passionate argument would be " uhhh, now just a minute Hank, Uhh, You need to glue j12 to the stringer first. I mean, don't you SEE whats happening!" and Fonda would reply, " Yep, hand me j12." One of the first people to congratulate John Wayne backstage for his Oscar was Jane. Somebody asked the Duke about her. Wayne replied, " I think Janies a little mixed up. But shes Hank's daughter." and walked away. Extremism has replaced simple manners, encouraged by quiet figures in the shadows with agendas.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Eagle, you have never heard my rendition of "It's a Small World." If I'm ever in your town, I'll play it for you!! We'll win you over yet!

Thank all of you for your responses to this. This is something that I have puzzled over for a long time and all of you have some insight into it.

Wayfarer, if you would like a piano accompaniment to your pipes, we can serenade civilization's passing together!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eagle, you have never heard my rendition of "It's a Small World." If I'm ever in your town, I'll play it for you!! We'll win you over yet!
> 
> Thank all of you for your responses to this. This is something that I have puzzled over for a long time and all of you have some insight into it.
> 
> Wayfarer, if you would like a piano accompaniment to your pipes, we can serenade civilization's passing together!


Come on in. I'll leave the porch light burning and keep the coffee hot. If you promise not to play that "wretched" tune, I'll come up with something to go with the coffee. After three trips to Disney World with the kids, I can't seem to get the darn tune out of my head...and it's been 11 years since the last trip!


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

crs said:


> Certainly I usually take a cynical view of TV coverage as well, but I understand that my opinion is a bit uninformed since I've never worked in TV and have no firsthand knowledge of how they decide to divide up an hour's broadcast. On newspapers, though, we attempt to fill a need. It's a fact that my newspaper's circulation increased during the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but I believe our primary motive was to satisfy a high demand for information. I was working in California during the L.A. riots and stayed up past dawn watching live TV coverage from L.A. stations via cable. I did not at the time consider it to be ratings-driven as much as it was a public service, considering most Southern Californians at 3 a.m. were either asleep, running for their lives or out looting stores.


I don't believe, crs, that the sorts of coverage you mentioned are what OP meant to address, and they are certainly not what I was on about. In the cases of 911 and the LA riots (add Hurricane Katrina, Iraq War, etc.) large scale things are taking place that affect the country. Reporting information about them is, as you point out, a public service. There's no need to do things to drum up sales when they take place as the public very much want to know what's going on.

Editorial choices, however, can become a bit more questionable when relatively small, fringe groups are at issue. I am sure that there are news organizations that will latch onto them because they will drive sales. Sure, the story run may be entirely legitimate and correct on its facts, but the very fact of coverage distorts the group's influence. Where these things are concerned, there really is no such thing as the neutral observer because the very act of observation alters reality.

As a side note, this post is not to be construed as a rephrasing of the old "liberal media" canard.:icon_smile:


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

I don't think people are more polarized today. There's an interesting book that came out a few years ago, "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America" by Morris Fiorina, Samuel Abrams and Jeremy Pope. It showed how the nation is not rigidly divided between deep red and deep blue, but is actually varying shades of purple. 

Likewise, citizens tend to be more moderate or even libertarian on issues that mobilize or anger the polarized people who get the majority of the ink -- even tough issues like abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, drug legalization, etc. 

In other words, the public tends to crowd around the center, while elected officials (think state legislators and Congress) tend to cluster toward the poles. And the people who hold the extreme positions do get a disproportionate amount of attention.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*The most controversial topic in America?*

Wednesday morning, I heard a news report on NPR concerning the growing number of people who are registering as independents. The reason given was the American electorate is not as divided as the two major political parties, and Americans are increasingly feeling unserved by them. Wednesday evening, I heard a news report on NPR about two brothers on different sides of the political divide, and how important it was for them to talk becuase of how bitterly divided our country has become.

I buy the first story, but not the second. I've seen poll after poll that indicate a strong unity of belief by most voters on a range of issues. Unfortunately, that strong unity crosses party ideological lines. For example, the Republican stance on abortion seems to be controlled by the right-to-life movement, while the Democrats position seems to be set by NOW and Planned Parenthood. Two extremes, and not very compatible.

In the book "Take it Back" Begala and Carville quote polls showing approximately 80% of all Americans back the following ideas on abortion: 
1. keep it legal
2. end late term/partial birth abortions
3. are in favor of parental notification laws

Obviously #1 is more of a Democratic position, but 2 and 3 are Republican. Why? Because both sides are held hotage to their own wacko fringes.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I don't think things are nearly as polarized and crazy as were back in the latter days of the Vietnam War and thereabouts, say from 1967 to the resignation of Nixon. We really don't have anything analogous to the armed crazies like the Weathermen, Black Panthers, SLA and such engaging in armed insurrection, terror and murder. We haven't had a major race riot in almost 15 years, AFAIK. No campus riots. I can't think of any crazies like the Manson gang of late, and so it goes....

I think there may be less bi-partisanship in politics nowadays, but I think the country as a whole is less divided and polarized.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Editorial choices, however, can become a bit more questionable when relatively small, fringe groups are at issue. I am sure that there are news organizations that will latch onto them because they will drive sales.


If it were that simple, we'd be doing a lot more of it, and I write that as cynically as possible. With almost every top-100 U.S. daily posting circulation declines (mine being among the few that showed a miniscule gain) for the September 2006 audit, newspapers are flailing about in search of the holy grail that captures readers consistently. There is indeed desperation, panic and an eagerness to try almost anything, no matter how ridiculous (only now are we realizing that revamping newsprint content to attract 20-year-olds is like trying to sell Oxxfords to people exiting a WalMart). But a one-day surge in circulation from a specific story does little or nothing for the bottom line because cover price barely pays for paper, ink and distribution. Nor will it have much effect on the twice-a-year circulation audits on which advertising rates are based. Thus, sensationalizing a single story does us no good and really doesn't enter our thought process; we simply try to choose what we think will be of interest to the most people who are likely to read a newspaper, especially ours.

My stint on urban tabloids in the 1990s taught me that attracting one-night-stand readers is not especially hard, but if you are shocking and gross consistently, the freak show will gain some transient readers but cost you the advertisers who don't want their store/product associated with such raw carnage or sleaze. So it is a precarious balance, and most of us are conservative in tone because it is safer.

The coverage of the fringe groups you mention usually is based on a desire to give a voice to the voiceless, to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," as the journalist Finley Peter Dunne phrased it a century ago. (Edit: which includes afflicting Democrats when they are in power.) If we thought it helped us financially, you'd be seeing a lot more of it.

Television, well, I can't speak for them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eagle, you have never heard my rendition of "It's a Small World." If I'm ever in your town, I'll play it for you!! We'll win you over yet!
> 
> Thank all of you for your responses to this. This is something that I have puzzled over for a long time and all of you have some insight into it.
> 
> Wayfarer, if you would like a piano accompaniment to your pipes, we can serenade civilization's passing together!


Hey, sounds great forsberger! Wait until next year, I plan on getting some small pipes, they are much more friendly to playing with other instruments. The GHB is rather loud and in Bflat, I am getting a set of small pipes that have a couple of interchangable pieces to make them play in D and A.

Edit: Here's a link to the very pipes I plan to buy. Listen to how mellow they are  https://www.scottishsmallpipes.com/files/sounds/marys_dream.mp3


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I don't think things are nearly as polarized and crazy as were back in the latter days of the Vietnam War and thereabouts, say from 1967 to the resignation of Nixon. We really don't have anything analogous to the armed crazies like the Weathermen, Black Panthers, SLA and such engaging in armed insurrection, terror and murder. We haven't had a major race riot in almost 15 years, AFAIK. No campus riots. I can't think of any crazies like the Manson gang of late, and so it goes....


Yeah, those were the days. Things are now much more boring than they were thirty-five, forty years ago. On the other hand, it's much easier nowadays to find a good beer when you want one. Call it a wash.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Lushington,

You are right about the beer - though one could easily be content drinking nothing but Budvar for the rest of their lives in my not so humble oprinion! But I would add better coffee and a host of other things that also make our lives a little brighter. Everyone should check out Virginia Postrel's The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness for a indepth treatment of the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Substance-St..._bbs_sr_1/104-7464095-8019130?ie=UTF8&s=books.

Also Greg Easterbrooks The Progress Paradox is also supposed to be very good but I haven't read it myself.

Karl


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Hey, sounds great forsberger! Wait until next year, I plan on getting some small pipes, they are much more friendly to playing with other instruments. The GHB is rather loud and in Bflat, I am getting a set of small pipes that have a couple of interchangable pieces to make them play in D and A.
> 
> Edit: Here's a link to the very pipes I plan to buy. Listen to how mellow they are  https://www.scottishsmallpipes.com/files/sounds/marys_dream.mp3


Those pipes sound wonderful. Have you ever played the uilleann pipes? I could play the bodhran or tin whistle with you guys.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Lushington,
> 
> You are right about the beer - though one could easily be content drinking nothing but Budvar for the rest of their lives in my not so humble oprinion! But I would add better coffee and a host of other things that also make our lives a little brighter. Everyone should check out Virginia Postrel's The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture, and Consciousness for a indepth treatment of the subject.
> 
> ...


 I was being facetious, of course. There are many things that are better now than they were thirty-five, forty years ago. Certainly coffee, as you mention. In 1970 you couldn't get a decent cup of coffee _anywhere_ in this country; now you can hardly avoid it. And I'll see your Budvar and raise you an Anchor Steam - which actually _was _around forty years ago, although you could hardly find it outside of a few bars in San Francisco. Fritz Maytag's purchase of the Anchor brewery in 1966 was the signal event in the American brewing renaissance. I haven't read either of the books you mention, but I've become a fan of Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column at espn.com; which was no mean feat on Greg's part, given my distaste for his brother's jurisprudence. The larger point relates to Jan's post about the distressing social conditionss of the late '60s and early '70s. If nothing else, things were exciting back then. The cat didn't get completely out of the bag, but he poked his head out and had a look around. It was fun.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm so plebian. I actually enjoy Budweiser, although my alcohol is down to about 2 or 3 drinks a month these days. 

I do like almost any beer except for the microbrews. I like about half of them and to me, about half of them have this awful aftertaste.

Last night, I attended a book signing by a Michigan State University Economics Professor who addressed a lot of these issues and how they affect Michigan. In Michigan, we have the nation's worst or second worst economy. 

Our leaders here are still more focused on abortion and trying to give things to the teachers' union than trying to establish a business climate that will create jobs.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Those pipes sound wonderful. Have you ever played the uilleann pipes? I could play the bodhran or tin whistle with you guys.


I have never played the uilleann as it has a "closed" fingering system vs. the "open" one of the Scottish style pipes. So I would have to learn a whole new fingering system, something I do not want to do until I have reached my competition goals on the GHB. The uilleann sounds fantastic and can be very emotive in skilled hands. The only draw back it has is that it's Irish 

The open secret is, that was the pipe used in Braveheart.


----------



## bulla (May 26, 2006)

WHITES WERE MORE EXTREME BEFORE...THEY KILLED BLACKS AND NATIVE INDIANS


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

bulla said:


> WHITES WERE MORE EXTREME BEFORE...THEY KILLED BLACKS AND NATIVE INDIANS


I see.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Bula, favour me with more insight on this one. As a trained archaeologist I am fascinated by the accumulated research that points to an explosive expansion of the human race over the world from our african motherland. I am also fascinated by the rapid morphological adaptations that gave us beautifull individuals in a kaleidoscope of colours and shapes. My greatest fascination, and avocation is the myriad cultures created to adapt and respond to different climes and changing circumstances. And finally, my greatest sadness is seeing our common heritage of violence, or it's capacity worldwide with extremely few omissions. So please, let me in on your privy information. I'll steal it for my doctorate maybe. WHO, WHERE and WHEN was there any major group that hasn't brutalised another, if not it's own? I wait anxiously in the darkness of ignorance for your illuminating insights on this matter.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

bulla said:


> WHITES WERE MORE EXTREME BEFORE...THEY KILLED BLACKS AND NATIVE INDIANS


And the Native Americans killed each other too. The Comanche fought virtually every tribe on the plains. The Ottawa, Sauk, Fox, Miami, Kickapoo and Potawatomi devastated the Illiniwek. Torture and ritual cannibalism were some of the ugly traits of the Iroquois, and these were shared with several other tribes east of the Mississippi. The game of lacrosse came from the Mohawk word Tewaarathon , which means "little brother of war." An extremely violent game in it's original form, many participants were permanently maimed or killed. As Kav said, no major group is innocent of violence against another.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

You guys, do not question Bulla Shiite. Whites are the root of all evil. Truth.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> The game of lacrosse came from the Mohawk word Tewaarathon , which means "little brother of war." An extremely violent game in it's original form, many participants were permanently maimed or killed.


Yes, but this was all in fun. 

I played one season of lax as a high school freshman. I was listed at 5-6, 135 that season, took a hell of a beating on the rare occasions I played varsity. Over the next six months I grew 6 inches but gained little weight. As a sophomore I ran winter track to get in shape for lacrosse. The assistant lacrosse coach approached me one day and said, "I hear you are showing promise on the track, maybe you ought to consider sticking with that this spring." He probably saved my life.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> Yes, but this was all in fun.
> 
> I played one season of lax as a high school freshman. I was listed at 5-6, 135 that season, took a hell of a beating on the rare occasions I played varsity. Over the next six months I grew 6 inches but gained little weight. As a sophomore I ran winter track to get in shape for lacrosse. The assistant lacrosse coach approached me one day and said, "I hear you are showing promise on the track, maybe you ought to consider sticking with that this spring." He probably saved my life.


You must have been a middie. Those poor guys run up and down the whole field and get the **** beat out of them on both sides. As a freshman I was 5'9" 160lbs, now I'm 6' 1" 195lbs. I've always played defense, so I have it a little easier, but I have still taken some pretty hard hits. My wife hates to watch my games. She asked me, are there any rules in lacrosse, or do you just beat each other? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Middie, yes, but at least not center middie. We lost a couple of those to separated shoulders on faceoffs before they started wearing shoulder pads.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You guys, do not question Bulla Shiite. Whites are the root of all evil. Truth.


Now look what you have started Karl. :icon_smile:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

No reply Bulla? why do I get the feeling your an ersatz swartze?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> Middie, yes, but at least not center middie. We lost a couple of those to separated shoulders on faceoffs before they started wearing shoulder pads.


We had a guy come out to our team's practice one day. He really wanted to play, but had no experience. He had good speed, just no shooting skills. Well a couple weeks later, we were winning a game by a few goals and our captain yells for him to get in there and play at middie for awhile. It wasn't 30 seconds later that this poor guy scoops the ball and turns into right into one of the hardest checks I have ever seen. Clean hit, but just brutal because he doesn't see it coming. Turns out he broke his collarbone in two places. We never saw him again after that game. I felt bad that he paid all that money for equipment and then played for less than a minute.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> It seems like we constantly hear about the extreme people on the left and right in politics. A recent thread about PETA discusses some of the excesses of these idiots. (I am no PETA fan.)
> 
> Have we become more extreme today, or do we and the media just give these people more attention than they deserve?


I think yes...a couple of points, at least for me, from me:

The age of Ayn Rand and the virtues of selfishness seem to be upon us. I remember reading Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead when I was a teen and loving them, maybe I missed the real point though, I like the strength, but I don't like the overall message today.

I am a moderate, that is someone who sits somewhere in the middle, I used to be a much more liberal person...I want to say something about PETA. As a mostly vegetarian for personal reason, and as a person working in the Animal Health Industry I find PETA a dangerous organization. What they want and do not really advertise is for all animals to roam free, no ownership of animals, they are equal to all. Maybe not a bad idea in theory but I cannot imagine the health issues that would come just from our now pets. As far as animals used for food, if anyone wants to have a backchannel converstation you can email me...I do not put my preferences down as they are mine, but if someone wants to know I am glad to discuss.

Liberals today are not as liberal as the right would have their followers believe, Conservatives, I find many of my friends who are self labelled conservatives are not that different than I am...but watch the fringes on both sides, that is where the danger is laying in wait..

OK, I am done, thanks


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Thank you for your response, Guit!

I think the middle is where a lot of us really are. Too much attention is given to propaganda today because there is so much visceral hatred between the right and the left. (So much that both sides give the impression that they will gladly do us all in if it means that their opponent is harmed.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

guitone said:


> I think yes...a couple of points, at least for me, from me:
> 
> The age of Ayn Rand and the virtues of selfishness seem to be upon us. I remember reading Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead when I was a teen and loving them, maybe I missed the real point though, I like the strength, but I don't like the overall message today.
> 
> ...


Part (most?) of the problem is in the definition of terms. For example, look up the definition of "liberalism", and compare it to how the word is misused in today's politics. Its traditional and accurate meaning is the advocation of personal responsibility, freedom from government intrusion etc, yet today it refers to something close to the exact opposite. The fact is, what we got from Democrats in our House of Representatives for 40 years was not liberalism, it was socialism.

The same is true for "conservatism". People use the word today to refer to Fox News, yet we rarely see bona fide conservatives such as Bill Buckley on their network. What we do get are a steady stream of horribly narrow neoconservatives, who e.g. were only too happy to look the other way while the Republican Party implemented the largest expansion of federal government in U.S. history. Close to the exact opposite of traditional conservatism.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The same is true for "conservatism". People use the word today to refer to Fox News, yet we rarely see bona fide conservatives such as Bill Buckley on their network. What we do get are a steady stream of horribly narrow neoconservatives, who e.g. look the other way while the Republican Party implemented the largest expansion of federal government in U.S. history. Close to the exact opposite of traditional conservatism.


It's quite obvious you have never actually listened to either a conservative or even neo-con (your word) talk about Republican budgets in the last six years.

From Rush, to Pat Buchanan, to Bill Krystal, to Hannity, to O'Reilly, to Cavuto, to Larry Kudlow and John Rutledge conservatives have been complaining about the fiscal agenda of this Administration and the Congress for the whole six years.

The lackluster turnout of conservatives that support Republicans that allowed the Democrats to stomp Republicans and re-gain control of most of the country was caused by just as many (or probably more) that were lost on liberal fiscal and immigration policies implemented by these so-called conservatives as those that were lost on Iraq.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> It's quite obvious you have never actually listened to either a conservative or even neo-con (your word) talk about Republican budgets in the last six years.
> 
> From Rush, to Pat Buchanan, to Bill Krystal, to Hannity, to O'Reilly, to Cavuto, to Larry Kudlow and John Rutledge conservatives have been complaining about the fiscal agenda of this Administration and the Congress for the whole six years.


That's unqualified nonsense. Read any speech given by any one of these people in the last six years and the agenda is abundantly evident. Read Fox's news ticker every six minutes: <<TERROR ALERT: ELEVATED>>, and never mind the fact this is not only an outright lie, it's propaganda direct from our "conservative" friends. In fact the only time Fox took this propaganda off their ticker in the last six years was immediately after Bush won re-election in 2004, when Krystal decided it had accomplished its intended purpose.

And you'll need to remind us the name of Bush's current press secretary.

Bottom line: the neocon terror and fear campaign of the past six years has been so successful, it's now a requirement for any political candidate that he or she be a complete defense droid. Any questioning or complaining about "homeland security" spending is political suicide. The Pentagon will get their 11% increase next year, paid for by Medicare and Medicaid cuts.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> That's unqualified nonsense. Read any speech given by any one of these people in the last six years and the agenda is abundantly evident. Read Fox's news ticker every six minutes: <<TERROR ALERT: ELEVATED>>, and never mind the fact this is not only an outright lie, it's propaganda direct from our "conservative" friends. In fact the only time Fox took this propaganda off their ticker in the last six years was immediately after Bush won re-election in 2004, when Krystal decided it had accomplished its intended purpose.
> 
> And you'll need to remind us the name of Bush's current press secretary.
> 
> Bottom line: the neocon terror and fear campaign of the past six years has been so successful, it's now a requirement for any political candidate that he or she be a complete defense droid. Any questioning or complaining about "homeland security" spending is political suicide. The Pentagon will get their 11% increase next year, paid for by Medicare and Medicaid cuts.


The fact that they talk about the WOT automatically means they don't care and never talk about conservative fiscal policies or immigration? Wow! Frank, your party is the party of one issue politics not mine. Conservatives care about terror and fiscal policies and more.

Tony Snow was one of the harshest idealogical critics of the Administration - that's one reason why he was chosen. I miss William F. Buckley's television and plublic appearances too, but you can still read his columns https://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE0Ng== and of course his books will live forever! I highly suggest the Conservative Book Club - God and Man at Yale is a must read you will love it! 

Is "unqualified nonsense" your new ad hom since you had to eat your shoe on the "non sequitur" line? Just the facts please, Frank. We're still waiting for you to back your claims in the other thread. You're falling way behind. Trying to change the subject to WOT won't save you, either. You said Conservatives have looked the other way on fiscal policies. Back it up or start issuing retractions.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The fact that they talk about the WOT automatically means they don't care and never talk about conservative fiscal policies or immigration?


They're "cared" a bit more only since the last election, and since their viewership has dropped by almost 50%. Seems Americans are finally catching on and waking up.

And I don't mean to single out Fox for this agenda, you'll need to look e.g. at the membership roll of the PNAC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century, remember back e.g. to the "Countdown to Iraq" which MSNBC gave us 24/7 for EIGHT MONTHS, which itself was one of the results of the "summits" which occurred in 2001 and 2002 between Karl Rove and major media heads, etc etc.

Fox is just one minor but rather pathetic symptom of the problem.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> They're "cared" a bit more only since the last election.


Prove it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

I'm through doing your homework for you. Do your own for once.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I'm through doing your homework for you. Do your own for once.


LOL...so now proving things you say is unneeded and when people ask for proof, this is "doing" their "homework" for them?

LOL, okay, little green men eat the cheese of which the moon is made. I shall not prove this to you FrankDC, you must do your own homework to find the facts on this important topic!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I'm through doing your homework for you. Do your own for once.


I'm sorry to see you quit now, but thank you for the MBA! I really owe you one.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

ksinc said:


> From Rush, to Pat Buchanan, to Bill Krystal, to Hannity, to O'Reilly, to Cavuto, to Larry Kudlow and John Rutledge conservatives have been complaining about the fiscal agenda of this Administration and the Congress for the whole six years.


I have to admit ... I was rather surprised to see -- as well as buy and read -- Pat Buchanan's book, _Where the Right Went Wrong._ And it's not the only book of it's kind.

And lately I'm seeing more and more "traditional" Republicans stepping forward in hope of taking back the Republican party. That would certainly make it more appealing to me as a fiscal conservative.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

RSS,

I agree. Free Markets, Free Minds. Get the government out of our bedrooms and our wallets. But I suppose that by harboring such thoughts I might be accussed by some of being an extremist.

Karl


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> RSS,
> 
> I agree. Free Markets, Free Minds. Get the government out of our bedrooms and our wallets. But I suppose that by harboring such thoughts I might be accussed by some of being an extremist.
> 
> Karl


Got me thinking of-wouldn't it be nice if the two parties were the Libertarians ( instead of the Democrats) and the Constitution Party ( instead of the Republicans)- At least then there's be some real choice instead of the Republocrats.

"Extremism in the defence of Liberty is no vice"-or something like that...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

RSS said:


> I have to admit ... I was rather surprised to see -- as well as buy and read -- Pat Buchanan's book, _Where the Right Went Wrong._ And it's not the only book of it's kind.
> 
> And lately I'm seeing more and more "traditional" Republicans stepping forward in hope of taking back the Republican party. That would certainly make it more appealing to me as a fiscal conservative.


I think a lot of people would be surprised what good reads Pat's books are sometimes. I rather frequently recommend _A Republic, Not An Empire_. Pat gets both the history and the lessons right.


----------

